CCPR/C/132/D/2552/2015 also claimed that the community was falling apart. The authors requested that certain evidence be gathered. 2.19 On 23 November 2010, the court admitted the charges against the farm owners and set 23 May 2011 as the deadline for indictment. On 4 February 2011, the authors brought a formal complaint against both farm owners, requesting that the case be brought to trial. On 9 February 2011, the prosecutor’s office filed an indictment, but it was returned owing to serious formal defects. 2.20 On 2 March 2011, at the authors’ request, another judicial inspection was carried out in the community during which it was observed that the farm owners had not remedied the breach of their obligation to plant hedges and create buffer zones. 2.21 On 10 and 28 March 2011, the defendants acknowledged their liability and requested a “conditional suspension of proceedings”, a procedural device allowing for a trial to be suspended for the gathering of evidence, during which time the defendants must follow specific rules with a view to the termination of the criminal suit. 16 2.22 On 28 March 2011, the authors added the academic report “Diagnóstico de la presencia de glifosato en arroyos superficiales de los departamentos de Canindeyú y San Pedro” (footnote 9) to the criminal case file. 2.23 On 1 June 2011, the prosecutor’s office filed another indictment against the farm owners, noting that “the act fully meets the definition of the offence”.17 2.24 The case remained stalled for two years because the initial hearing was suspended on seven occasions; on six of these occasions, the reason for the suspension was failure to notify the parties.18 2.25 The initial hearing was finally held on 25 June 2013. The Public Prosecution Service moved for a temporary stay of proceedings against both the accused, arguing a lack of evidence. On 30 July 2013, the Public Prosecution Service sustained the motion and ordered 15 pieces of evidence to be obtained (7 of which had been requested by the authors but denied by the Public Prosecution Service). On 23 September 2013, the court stayed the proceedings against the farm owners. 2.26 At the time of submission of the communication, no action had been taken to obtain any of those pieces of evidence. Administrative complaint 2.27 The authors also lodged a complaint with the National Plant and Seed Quality and Health Service. On 12 January 2010, an inspection of both farms found large quantities of the herbicide paraquat and the insecticide endolsufan, in violation of environmental laws, as their use had not been registered with National Plant and Seed Quality and Health Service even though their high toxicity made them “red stripe” products. Inspectors also discovered empty containers of the insecticide chlorpyrifos, whose commercialization is banned because, in addition to the chemical’s extreme toxicity for fish and bees, exposure to it has been linked to neurological effects and developmental and autoimmune disorders. 2.28 Despite the foregoing, the complaint has not led to any change, and the community continues to be harmed by the fumigation. The complaint 3.1 The authors claim that, having initiated ordinary criminal proceedings, they have exhausted the available domestic remedies. They also claim that the communication should 16 17 18 GE.22-15010 File No. 1303/09, p. 58. File No. 1303/09, pp. 64 ff. The initial hearing was scheduled on 1 July 2011 but was suspended because the parties had not been notified. It was rescheduled for 21 December 2011, then 12 and 25 July 2012 and 20 March 2013, but was suspended each time because the parties had not been notified. It was rescheduled again for 17 April 2013 but was suspended at the request of the prosecutor, who had to take part in another trial. On 22 May 2013, the initial hearing was suspended again because the parties had not been notified. 5