89. The Court considers it pertinent to recall that, as stated previously, it has jurisdiction to examine separate acts that took place within the investigations and criminal proceedings initiated for the murder of Márcia Barbosa de Souza, after December 10, 1998. Therefore, the decision adopted by the Legislative Assembly of the State of Paraíba on December 17, 1998 (supra para. 75), which denied the authorization to criminally prosecute Mr. Pereira de Lima, on the one hand, and, on the other, the request for evidentiary procedures by the prosecutor in charge of the investigations against the other suspects, dated December 14, 1998 (supra para. 83), as well as the acts that were subsequently carried out, are within the Court’s jurisdiction, as they are closely related to them. 90. Taking into consideration the arguments of the Commission, the representatives and the State, the Court will now proceed to examine the merits of this case in the following order: a) rights to judicial guarantees, judicial protection and equality before the law, in relation to the obligations to respect and guarantee, the duty to adopt provisions of domestic law and the obligations set forth in Article 7 of the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women (hereinafter “Convention of Belém do Pará”) and b) right to personal integrity of the next of kin of Márcia Barbosa de Souza. VIII-1 RIGHTS TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES,173 EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW174 AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION,175 IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATIONS OF RESPECT AND GUARANTEE,176 THE DUTY TO ADOPT PROVISIONS OF DOMESTIC LAW 177 AND THE OBLIGATIONS SET FORTH IN ARTICLE 7 OF THE BELÉM DO PARÁ CONVENTION 178 A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 91. Regarding parliamentary immunity, the Commission indicated that, despite the fact that, from the beginning of the police investigation, responsibility for the death of Márcia Barbosa de Souza had been attributed to Mr. Pereira de Lima, it was not possible to begin criminal proceedings because the Legislative Assembly had denied, without justification, the request to lift his parliamentary immunity. It added that it was only possible to begin the proceedings against Mr. Pereira de Lima in March 2003, since he was not reelected as a deputy. It pointed out that parliamentary immunity was provided for in the Brazilian Constitution in very broad terms; therefore, since it did not comply with the parameters of objectivity and reasonableness, the rule was disproportionate and discriminatory. Furthermore, it considered that the lack of justification by the Legislative Assembly for rejecting the requests for authorization to initiate judicial proceedings showed that these were arbitrary decisions. It considered that the new wording of Article 53 of the Constitution, modified by Constitutional Amendment N° 35/2001, continued to allow proceedings to be suspended or paralyzed by the will of the deputies, so that the fundamental flaw of the broad and indeterminate nature of parliamentary immunity would not have been completely remedied, and would perpetuate the discrimination. Thus, it concluded that parliamentary immunity, applied to the specific case, would constitute a violation of the right to judicial guarantees, the principle of equality and non-discrimination and the right to judicial protection. 92. With respect to reasonable time, the Commission considered that the case was not of 173 Article Article Article Article Article Article 174 175 176 177 178 8 of the American Convention. 24 of the American Convention. 25 of the American Convention. 1(1) of the American Convention. 2 of the American Convention. 7 of the Belém do Pará Convention. -28-