case will be tried this year, and once a possible conviction is handed down, remedies would be available to challenge it, thus any final conviction is years off; and it should be considered that the homicide of Marcia Barbosa occurred more than eight years ago. 23. Petitioners note that even though the leading suspect is no longer a member of the legislature, he still wields considerable influence in local politics in the state of Paraíba, which may result in meddling so as to affect the impartiality of a trial by jury. The very delay in the matter shows the influence of the former legislator and his political group in the local judiciary, for even though the local community has become aware of and sensitive to the situation, it was not possible to get the authorities in charge to act immediately, once the possibility of going forward with the necessary indictment became feasible. 24. Petitioners adduce that more than three years after the criminal action was filed, it has gone forward with excessive sluggishness, bearing in mind that there has yet to be any decision on the merits. This delay, they argue, reflects the way the judiciary in Brazil treats cases of violence against women. Once the obstacle of legislative immunity was removed, the present hypothesis illustrates the grave pattern of discrimination in judicial matters, that is seen in the cases of attacks on and killings of women. After referring to situations addressed by the Commission, they argue that in the instant case there has been a context of impunity as regards situations in which violence against women is involved, whose particular characteristic consists of the extreme sluggishness in processing the criminal action brought against the alleged perpetrator. 25. Petitioners allege violations of the rights enshrined in Articles 4, 8, 24, 25, 1(1), and 2 of the American Convention, and Articles 3, 4, 5, and 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, and ask that the State be found responsible in this regard, and that it be ordered to pay the appropriate compensation. B. The State’s position 26. The State asserts that according to the Attorney General of the state of Paraíba, Mr. José Paulo Neto, the Public Ministry filed a complaint against the state legislator, the leading suspect in the homicide of student Marcia Barbosa de Souza. On two occasions, October 14, 1998, and March 31, 1999, the Court of Appeals of Paraíba asked the Legislative Assembly of that state for authorization to go forward in a criminal action against him, yet both requests were denied. It is also reported that the Secretariat of Human Rights is examining the possibility of taking measures in relation to this case. 27. In the additional information received on November 2, 2000, it was stated that during Regular Meeting No. 126 of the Council for the Defense of Human Rights (professional association created by Law No. 4.319), held on October 10, 2000, one of the issues addressed was the alleged victim’s murder; on that occasion the Council designated a Committee made up of Professor Flavia Piovesan and Mr. Percílio de Souza Lima Neto, in charge of taking action directly to obtain reports on the case. The State argued to the Commission that one would have to make contact with the Legislative Assembly of the state of Paraíba in order to note that the gravity of the circumstances in the case led to a complaint being filed against the Brazilian State before this Commission for violations of the rights and guarantees provided for in the American Convention. In addition, the Council for the Defense of Human Rights decided to take actions along with the executive, judiciary and legislative branches locally in order to emphasize the issue on the case and the importance given by the Federal Government to punish those responsible for the crime, and redress the damages caused to victim’s family. On December 21, 2001 the Brazilian National Congress passed a