“answer” or “answering brief”). In its brief, the State presented three preliminary objections and rejected the alleged violations of Articles 5, 8 and 25 of the Convention in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, as well as Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. It also objected to the measures of reparation requested by the representatives and the Commission. 8. Observations on the preliminary objections. On June 10 and 11, 2020, the representatives and the Commission, respectively, presented their observations on the preliminary objections raised by the State. 9. Public hearing. Through an Order of November 27, 2020,5 the President of the Court called the State, the representatives and the Inter-American Commission to a public hearing to receive their final oral arguments and observations, respectively, on the preliminary objections and possible merits, reparations and costs, and to hear the statements of a witness and an expert witness proposed by the representatives; an expert witness proposed by the State, and an expert witness proposed by the Commission. The public hearing was held on February 3 and 4, 2021, during the Court’s 139th Regular Session, which took place via videoconference. 6 10. Amici curiae. The Court received six amici curiae briefs presented by: 1) lawyers and investigators from Brazil7; 2) the International Law Clinic of the University of Curitiba (UNICURITIBA)8; 3) the Human Rights and Environmental Law Clinic of the University of the State of Amazonas9; 4) the International Human Rights Clinic of the Federal University of Rio Cf. Case of Barbosa de Souza et al. v. Brazil. Summons to a Hearing. Order of the President of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 27, 2020. Available at: http://www.Courtidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/barbosa_27_11_2020_por.pdf. 6 The following persons were present at the hearing: a) for the Inter-American Commission: Joel Hernández Garcia, then President of the IACHR; Marisol Blanchard, Deputy Executive Secretary of the IACHR; Jorge Meza Flores and Analía Banfi Vique, advisers of the IACHR, b) for the representatives: Beatriz Galli, Thaís Detoni, Gisela de León, and Viviana Kristicevic, of CEJIL; Rodrigo Deodato de Souza Silva and Eliel David Alves da Silva, of GAJOP, and c) for the State: Antônio Francisco Da Costa and Silva Neto, Ambassador of Brazil in Costa Rica and agent; João Lucas Quental Novaes de Almeida, Director of the Human Rights and Citizenship Division and case agent; Minister Marcelo Ramos Araújo, Head of the Human Rights Division and agent; Secretary Débora Antônia Lobato Cândido, Adviser of the Human Rights Division and case agent; Secretary Lucas dos Santos Furquim Ribeiro, Human Rights Section of the Embassy of Brazil in San José and case agent; Tony Teixeira de Lima, Lawyer of La Unión and case agent; Milton Nunes Toledo Juner, Head of the Special Counsel for International Affairs of the Ministry for Women, the Family and Human Rights (MMFDH) and case agent; Bruna Nowak, Coordinator of International Human Rights Disputes of the Special Counsel’s Office for International Affairs of MMFDH and case agent; Aline Albuquerque Sanf Anna de Oliveira, Coordinator of International Affairs of the MMFDH Legal Consultancy and case agent; Juliana Mendes Rodrigues, Technical Adviser to the National Secretariat of Policies for Women of the MMFDH and case agent; Daniele de Sousa Alcântara, Coordinator of Policies for the Prevention of Crimes against Women and Vulnerable Groups of the Ministry of Justice and Public Security (MJSP) and case agent; Evandro Luiz dos Santos, public official of the MJSP and case agent, and Joselito de Araújo Sousa, Federal Police Commissioner. 7 The brief was signed by Ramiro Gomes Von Saltiel and Ivonei Souza Trindade. The brief discusses the lack of a legal definition of femicide at the time of the facts, the obligation to investigate and the alleged responsibility for the violation of the right to life. It also establishes the obligation to make reparations, the right to a reasonable time in criminal proceedings and the alleged violation of the right to reasonable time in the specific case. 8 The brief was signed by Priscila Caneparo dos Anjos, Valentina Vaz Boni, Juliana Absher Sá e Silva, Kimberly Coelho de Oliveira and Sabrina Hatschbach Maciel. The brief addresses parliamentary immunity in the Brazilian Constitution and the alleged structural violence against women in Brazil. 9 The brief was signed by Silvia Maria da Silveira Loureiro, Jamilly Izabela de Brito Silva, Antonio Lucas Feitoza Pantoja, Fabiana Rodrigues da Rocha, Gabriel Henrique Pinheiro Andion, Isabela Augusto Vilaça, Laura Loureiro Gomes, Luana Vieira Amazonas, Luane Antella Moreira, Lucas Schneider Veríssimo de Aquino, Maiza Lima Bruce Raposo da Câmara, Mayara Ellen Lima e Silva, Raíssa de Morais Pereira, and Rayssa Vinhote dos Santos. The brief describes the alleged systematic pattern of gender-based violence in Brazil, the legislation and policies to combat gender-based violence in Brazil, the criminal protection of gender-based violence in Brazilian criminal law, femicide and the current understanding of the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court, the alleged use of the political prerogative of the perpetrator of the crime as a factor to delay proceedings through parliamentary immunity, and the alleged gap in regulatory provisions related to gender-based violence in Brazil. 5 -6-