34 76. The Court feels that the threats and attempts on the safety and life of human rights defenders and the impunity of those responsible for such actions are particularly grave because they have an impact that is not only individual, but also collective. When such things happen, society is prevented from learning the truth about whether the rights of persons are being respected or violated under the jurisdiction of a given State. 77. The States have the duty to provide the resources necessary for human rights defenders to conduct their activities freely;55 to protect them when they are subject to threats and thus ward off any attempt against their life and safety; to refrain from setting up hindrances that might make their work more difficult, and to conduct conscientious, effective investigations of violations against them, thus preventing impunity. 78. In response to the death of Gilson Nogueira de Carvalho, the State undertook a police investigation on October 20, 1996, and considered several hypotheses as to the perpetrators of the homicide. One of these theories associated his death with the public claims Gilson Nogueira de Carvalho had made as a human rights defender, concerning the conduct of a death squad known as the “golden boys.” This gang was alleged to be made up of officers and agents of the police force working in the department of Maurílio Pinto de Medeiros, who at the time of the death of Gilson Nogueira de Carvalho was serving as Deputy Secretary of Public Security for the State of Rio Grande do Norte. These claims publicized by the attorney triggered investigations of several members of the police force of the State of Rio Grande do Norte for the alleged commission of homicides, kidnappings and torture (supra paras. 67(2), 67(7), 67(8) and 67(10)). 79. In the instant case, the Court took into account the body of evidence and the arguments presented by the parties and conducted a thorough study of the entire series of police and judicial procedures conducted as of December 10, 1998, that is, since the date when the State recognized the contentious jurisdiction of this Court. 80. The Court emphasizes that courts of the State are expected to examine the facts and evidence submitted in particular cases. It is not the responsibility of this Court to replace the domestic jurisdiction by ordering concrete methods or forms for investigating and judging a specific case in order to obtain a better or more effective outcome; instead, its role is to find whether or not, in the steps actually taken domestically, the State's international obligations embodied in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention have been violated. 81. For these reasons, the Court limited its analysis to facts that actually took place during the period when it had jurisdiction and conducted its review under the terms of paragraph 79 of this Judgment. The Court finds that it has not been demonstrated that the State violated the right to a fair trial or the right to judicial protection given in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention in the case of Jaurídice Nogueira de Carvalho and Geraldo Cruz de Carvalho. 55 Cf. Matter of the persons imprisoned in the “Dr. Sebastião Martins Silveira” Penitentiary in Araraquara, São Paulo. Provisional Measures, supra note 52, Considering clause 24; Matter of Monagas Judicial Confinement Center (“La Pica”). Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 9, 2006, Considering clause 14; Matter of Mery Naranjo et al. Provisional Measures, supra note 52, Considering clause 8; and Matter of the Forensic Anthropology Foundation. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 9, 2006, Considering clause 12.