29 December 16, 2004, because “no procedures [had] taken place that might invalidate the [appealed ruling].”49 67.33. On January 20, 2005, the parents of Gilson Nogueira de Carvalho, in their capacity as third-party plaintiffs in the charges, filed a special motion and an extraordinary remedy requesting that the jury's verdict be reversed. On February 16, 2005, Otávio Ernesto Moreira submitted his pleadings and asked the Court not to refer these motions to the higher courts. On the same date, the President of the State Court of Rio Grande do Norte received the “closed court records” to pass on the admissibility of the appeals. On May 11, 2005, the State Court of Rio Grande do Norte referred the appeals to the Higher Court and to the Federal Supreme Court.50 VIII ARTICLES 8(1) AND 25(1)OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION (RIGHT TO A FAIR TRAIL AND RIGHT TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION) IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 1(1) (OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS) Arguments of the Commission 68. The Commission argues, inter alia, that: a) it takes no position on the alleged violation of Article 4 of the Convention. b) concerning the right to a fair trial and the right to judicial protection, it states that: i. The conduct of authorities in investigating the death of Gilson Nogueira de Carvalho was faulty, taking into account the previously existing evidence of possible involvement by members of the civil police force of the State of Rio Grande do Norte in the murder of Gilson Nogueira de Carvalho, the later discovery of one of the weapons used for the crime in the possession of Otávio Ernesto Moreira, who at the time of the homicide was an active member of this police force, and his statement to the effect that his shotgun was used by himself and by other officers. All this should have led investigators to take certain measures at the very least: find out to whom Otávio Ernesto Moreira lent his weapon and question them; find out whether his 49 Cf. appeal lodged by the Office of the Public Prosecutor on June 28, 2002 (file of appendixes to the response to the application, Appendix 1, Volume 6, folios 5169 through 5176); appeal lodged by Jaurídice Nogueira de Carvalho and Geraldo Cruz de Carvalho on July 16, 2002 (file of appendixes to the response to the application, Appendix 1, Volume 6, folios 5180 through 5202); ruling of the Criminal Chamber of the State Court of Rio Grande do Norte, February 6, 2004 (file of appendixes to the response to the application, Appendix 1, Volume 6, folios 5348 through 5365); “motion of interpretation” lodged by Jaurídice Nogueira de Carvalho and Geraldo Cruz de Carvalho on March 9, 2004 (file of appendixes to the response to the application, Appendix 1, Volume 6, folios 5366 through 5369); and ruling by the Criminal Chamber of the State Court of Rio Grande do Norte, December 16, 2004 (file of appendixes to the response to the application, Appendix 1, Volume 6, folios 5380 through 5383). 50 Cf. special motion and extraordinary remedy lodged by Jaurídice Nogueira de Carvalho and Geraldo Cruz de Carvalho on January 20, 2005 (file of appendixes to the response to the application, Appendix 1, Volume 6, folios 5387 through 5467 and 5486 through 5539); rebuttal filed by Otávio Ernesto Moreira on February 16, 2005 (file of appendixes to the response to the application, Appendix 1, Volume 6, folios 5544 through 5548 and 5549 through 5553); and order by the Judicial Secretariat of the State of Rio Grande do Norte, February 16, 2005 (file of appendixes to the response to the application, Appendix 1, Volume 6, folio 5554).