26 67.22. On June 16, 1999, the Inferior Court of Macaíba handed down a ruling of pronúncia, an indictment by which the court acknowledges the existence of circumstances that render charges admissible, and ordered the accused to come before a jury trial. On July 19, 1999, Otávio Ernesto Moreira's defense team appealed this decision. On October 27, 2000, the Court rejected the appeal, stating that the judge needed “[to be convinced] that a crime had occurred and […] that evidence of the perpetrators was available” before ordering a jury trial, that this was indeed true in the instant case, and therefore a jury trial should be convened.39 67.23. On March 30, 2001, the Office of the Public Prosecutor filed charges, and on April 18, 2001, the defense filed its rebuttal.40 67.24 On June 25, 2001, Otávio Ernesto Moreira approached the Court of Macaíba to request a change of venue for the jury trial that he had been ordered to undergo. On October 24, 2001, the Court decided to admit his petition and ordered that the venue of the jury trial be changed from the city of Macaíba to the city of Natal, capital of the State of Rio Grande do Norte, because “several local organizations [were] making public statements [in favor of] conviction; that the trial [had] [broad] repercussions [and that] the victim's brother [was at that time] deputy mayor of the city of Macaíba.”41 67.25. On December 4, 2001, the parents of Gilson Nogueira de Carvalho, in their capacity as third-party plaintiffs in the charges, lodged a “motion of interpretation∗” of the ruling of October 24, 2001. They claimed in this motion that the decision contained omissions that should be clarified, and they requested a stay on all procedures done subsequent to the publication of the decision being appealed. On December 19, 2001, the State Court of Rio Grande do Norte decided not to admit the motion, contending that the third-party plaintiffs to the charges lacked procedural standing to appeal the request for change of venue of the jury trial from the city of Macaíba to the city of Natal.42 39 Cf. ruling of pronúncia handed down by Judge Patrícia Godim Moreira Pereira of the Court of Macaíba on June 16, 1999 (file of appendixes to the response to the application, Appendix 1, Volume 5, folios 4516 through 4530); appeal lodged by Otávio Ernesto Moreira's defense team on July 19, 1999 (file of appendixes to the response to the application, Appendix 1, Volume 5, folios 4539 through 4544); and ruling of the Criminal Chamber of the State Court of Rio Grande do Norte on October 27, 2000 (file of appendixes to the response to the application, Appendix 1, Volume 5, folios 4590 through 4597). 40 Cf. indictment by the Office of the Public Prosecutor (Libelo-crime acusatório), March 30, 2001 (file of appendixes to the response to the application, Appendix 1, Volume 5, folios 4635 and 4636); and rebuttal by the defense of Otávio Ernesto Moreira, April 18, 2001 (file of appendixes to the response to the application, Appendix 1, Volume 5, folios 4642 and 4643). 41 Cf. brief submitted by Otávio Ernesto Moreira's defense team, June 25, 2001 (file of appendixes to the response to the application, Appendix 1, Volume 5, folios 4745 through 4757); and ruling by the full State Court of Rio Grande do Norte on October 24, 2000 (file of appendixes to the response to the application, Appendix 1, Volume 5, folios 4769 through 4773). ∗ In the Portuguese version of this Judgment, embargos de declaração. 42 Cf. “motion of interpretation” lodged by Jaurídice Nogueira de Carvalho and Geraldo Cruz de Carvalho on December 4, 2001 (file of appendixes to the response to the application, Appendix 1, Volume 6, folios 4969 through 4976); and ruling by the full State Court of Rio Grande do Norte, December 19, 2001 (file of appendixes to the response to the application, Appendix 1, Volume 6, folios 4980 through 4985).