it was forwarded to the President of that body on October 17, 1998. 7 On December 17, 1998, the legislature issued Resolution No. 614/98, denying the request to lift immunity, sent by the Court of Appeals of the state, to be able to proceed with the indictment of the state legislator; this decision was published in the official gazette of the legislative branch on December 18, 1998.8 In March 1999, as a new legislative session was beginning, the judiciary of the state of Paraíba submitted a new request to the Legislative Assembly to have the legislator’s immunity lifted,9 and that request was again denied, without it being published in the official gazette. 18. The petitioners adduced that granting a request to lift immunity is a discretional act of the legislative branch, whose decision is based on a secret ballot of its members. Having exhausted this mechanism, its result is definitive, at least until the end of the term of the person in question, leaving the judiciary without jurisdiction to modify that decision. The legislative decision to deny the request to lift immunity prevents any judicial measure from being taken against the legislator, there not being, in the positive law in force in the State, any measure whatsoever to change this situation. Given that the judicial avenue was closed off by the Legislative Assembly, and as no other remedy exists, the domestic remedies for pursuing this case were exhausted. Overturning the legislative resolution in question requires a new resolution authorizing the lifting of immunity. It is alleged that the position of the legislative branch has constituted a hindrance to access to justice for the family of the alleged victim; it was impossible for them to have a criminal action brought against the person allegedly responsible. 19. In the additional information sent by the petitioners on October 3, 2006, it is said that on December 20, 2001, there was a legislative change in the State regarding legislative immunity, with the approval, by the National Congress, of Constitutional Amendment No. 35/2001, which determined that criminal actions against legislators could be admitted, without the prior authorization of the legislative chamber to which he or she belongs. With this innovation, after the proceeding was initiated, it must be communicated to the body of which the accused is a member, which may suspend the criminal proceeding, if it deems it advisable to do so, by vote of the majority of its members. 20. The petitioners assert that as regards the instant case, despite that modification, the authorities with jurisdiction to trigger a criminal action in the state of Paraíba did not take measures aimed at starting up anew the judicial activities aimed at shedding light on responsibility for the crime until March 2003. 21. According to the petitioners, a resolution known as the “pronunciamento” (indictment) against the former legislator was handed down on July 27, 2005, seven years after the crime was committed, as the Brazilian justice system considered that there were sufficient indicia to determine that he had been the perpetrator of the crime. The defense appealed this decision; its appeal was rejected. More than one year has passed waiting for the proceeding to be placed on the court’s docket for trial by jury. 22. They mention that as the accused is free pending trial, the case has not been accorded priority, in keeping with Article 431 of the Brazilian Code of Criminal Procedure. Mindful of the reality of the local justice system, it is said, there is no expectation that the 7 Official note from the Judicial Branch to the Legislative Assembly requesting the lifting of immunity. Annex 3 of the petition 8 Resolution of the Legislative Assembly denying the lifting of immunity. Annex 4 of the petition. 9 New Official note from the Judicial Branch asking that the Assembly lift immunity. Annex 5 of the petition.