A.2 Considerations of the Court 19. The Court notes that Brazil ratified the American Convention on Human Rights on September 25, 1992, and the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women on November 27, 1995. Subsequently, on December 10, 1998, the State of Brazil recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court. In this regard, the Court recalls that in its declaration, Brazil indicated that the Court would have jurisdiction over “facts subsequent to” such recognition. The terms of the recognition of jurisdiction made by the State of Brazil are as follows: The Government of the Federative Republic of Brazil declares its recognition as binding, for an indefinite period of time, ipso jure, of the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on all matters relating to the interpretation or application of the American Convention on Human Rights, according to Article 62 of that Convention, on the condition of reciprocity, and for matters arising after the time of this declaration.16 (Emphasis added) 20. The Court reiterates that it cannot exercise its contentious jurisdiction to apply the American Convention and declare a violation of its provisions with respect to alleged facts or conduct by the State that could imply its international responsibility, which occurred prior to such recognition of jurisdiction, as it has affirmed in previous cases against the State of Brazil. 17 21. Furthermore, in its constant case law, the Court has established that judicial acts or acts related to an investigative process may involve separate violations and may constitute “specific and autonomous violations of denial of justice.” 18 Thus, the Court may examine and rule on alleged violations referring to acts or decisions in judicial proceedings that occurred after the date of recognition of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction, even when the judicial proceedings began on a date prior to the recognition of the Court's jurisdiction. 22. The Court observes that both the Commission and the representatives indicated that they did not seek a declaration of international responsibility of the State for events prior to December 10, 1998. In consideration of the above criteria, the Court has jurisdiction to analyze the alleged actions and omissions of the State that took place in the investigations and criminal proceedings related to the alleged murder of Márcia Barbosa de Souza, after December 10, 1998, both in relation to the American Convention and to Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. 23. For the foregoing reasons, the Court reaffirms its settled case law on this issue and finds the preliminary objection to be partially grounded. B. Alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies B.1. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission Cf. OAS, General information on the Treaty: American Convention on Human Rights. Brazil, acceptance of jurisdiction. Available at: http://www.oas.org/juridico/spanish/firmas/b-32.html. 17 Cf. Case of Gomes Lund et al. (“Guerrilha do Araguaia”) v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Series C No. 219, para. 16; Case of the Workers of Hacienda Brasil Verde v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 20, 2016. Series C No. 318, para. 63; Case of Xucuru Indigenous People and its members v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 5, 2018. Series C No. 346, para. 31, and Case of Herzog et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 15, 2018. Series C No. 353, para. 27. 18 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Preliminary objections. Judgment of November 23, 2004. Series C No. 118, para. 84, and Case of Herzog et al. v. Brazil, supra, para. 28. 16 -9-