de Janeiro10; 5) the Human Rights Clinic of the Brazilian Institute for Teaching, Research and Development (IDP)11, and 6) the Human Rights Clinic of the Federal University of Bahia.12 11. Final written arguments and observations. On March 5, 2021, the representatives13 and the State submitted their final written arguments with the attached documents, and the Commission presented its final written observations. 12. Observations of the parties and of the Commission. On March 24, 2021, the State and the Commission submitted comments on the annexes presented by the representatives. In this regard, the Commission indicated that it had no observations. 13. Deliberation of the instant case. The Court deliberated the present judgment through a virtual session held on September 6 and 7, 2021.14 III JURISDICTION 14. The Inter-American Court has jurisdiction to hear this case, in the terms of Article 62(3) of the American Convention, because Brazil has been a State Party to that instrument since September 25, 1992, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on December 10, 1998. Brazil also ratified the Convention of Belém do Pará on November 27, 1995. IV PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS The brief was signed by Raisa Duarte Da Silva Ribeiro, Carolina Cyrillo, Thainá Mamede, Alissa Ishakewitsch, Giovanna Neves Barbastefano, Isadora Marques Merli, Matheus Zanon, Tayara Causanilhas, Alanna Aléssia Rodrigues Pereira, Alice Mac Dowell Veras, Ana Beatriz Eufrazino de Araújo, Ana Clara Abrahão Maia Ribeiro, Ariel Linda Gomes de Oliveira, Bruno Stigert de Sousa, Camila Senatore Moore, Giulia Alves Maia, Isabelle Dianne Gibson Pereira, Izabelle Pontes Ramalho Wanderley Monteiro, Janayna Nunes Pereira, Júlia André Roma, Júlia Vasques Siqueira, Juliana Moreira Mendonça, Juliana Santos Bezerra, Lara Campos de Paulo, Lara Ribeiro Pereira Carneiro, Larissa Emilia Guilherme Ribeiro, Leticia Borges Guimarães, Liliane Palha Velho, Livia de Meira Lima Paiva, Luis Alves de Lima Neto, Luziane Alves de Andrade Cruz, Marcela Siqueira Miguens, Maria Pacheco Da Costa Vieira Dos Santos, Marilha Boldt, Marina Müller Dos Santos Moreira, Marina Oliveira Guimarães, Raquel Lopes Folena, Raquel Moreira Dos Santos, Sofia Travancas Vieira, Taís Alvim Vasconcellos, Tarssyo Rocha de Medeiros and Thaisa Da Silva Viana. The brief describes the theoretical and contextual foundations of femicide and practical applications. 11 The brief was signed by Maíra de Amorim Rocha, Priscilla Sodré Pereira and Luciana Silva Garcia. The brief addresses the legislative changes aimed at modifying the Maria da Penha Law, allegedly harming actions to combat violence against women. 12 The brief was signed by Bruna Matos da Silva, Bruna Rafaela de Santana Santos, Carolina Muniz de Oliveira, Christian Lopes Oliveira Alves, Eduarda da Silva Pereira dos Santos, Ianine Vitória dos Anjos, Malu Stanchi, Marina Muniz Pinto de Carvalho Matos, Matheus Ferreira Gois Fontes, Thiago Silva Castro Vieira and Luiza Rosa Barbosa de Lima. The brief describes the alleged impunity in relation to gender violence, and the socioeconomic, racial and regional markers. 13 In their final written arguments, the representatives of the alleged victims asked the Court to withhold the names of Márcia Barbosa de Souza’s next of kin, since they fear the public exposure that the case could have, due to the intense media coverage of the facts and the gender stereotypes that have been constructed around Ms. Barbosa de Souza. The representatives also pointed out that it was for this reason that the mother and sister of Márcia Barbosa de Souza did not participate in the public hearing before the Court. Finally, they added that the purpose of the confidentiality is to “protect the physical and psychological integrity of Márcia Barbosa’s family, as well as to avoid their revictimization, given the sensitivity of the case" and, therefore, they requested that the Court, in the judgment and subsequent documents, refer to Ms. Barbosa de Souza's next of kin only by their initials. In this regard, the Court considers that the confidentiality of the identity of the next of kin in question is appropriate and must be respected, both in the context of the present proceedings before the Court and with respect to the statements or information that any of the parties may make public about the case. 14 This judgment was deliberated and approved during the Court’s 143rd Special Session which, due to the exceptional circumstances caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, was held virtually using digital platforms in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of the Court. 10 -7-