charge of authorizing the prosecution of a parliamentarian.202 By contrast, Bolivia203 prohibits the application of procedural immunity to members of the Legislative Branch, although it guarantees their inviolability, while Colombia does not contemplate normative provisions alluding to parliamentary immunity, but only in relation to the prerogative of privilege.204 b. The application of parliamentary procedural immunity in relation to the criminal proceedings for the homicide of Márcia Barbosa de Souza 107. The Court considers that the application of parliamentary immunity can only be analyzed in relation to a specific case in order to prevent the adoption of an arbitrary decision by the respective legislative body, in such a way that it favors impunity. The legislative chamber must, therefore, focus on examining whether there are clear elements of arbitrariness in the exercise of the criminal action directed against a parliamentarian that may compromise the legislator’s autonomy. To this end, it is necessary to carefully weigh the guarantee of the exercise of the mandate for which the parliamentarian was democratically elected, on the one hand, and the right of access to justice, on the other. 108. However, in light of the purpose of procedural immunity- the preservation of parliamentary order - the examination of fumus persecutionis presupposes an assessment of the seriousness, nature and circumstances of the alleged facts, since the response to a request for a waiver of parliamentary immunity cannot derive from an arbitrary action of the legislative chamber, which ignores the nature of the conflict and the need to protect the interests and rights at stake.205 109. The Court recalls that the duty to state reasons is required of any public authority, Article 61 of the Constitution of the Republic of Chile establishes that “Representatives and Senators are only inviolable for the opinions they express and the votes they cast in the performance of their duties, in House or commission sessions. No Representative or Senator, from the day of his election or from his oath, according to the case, may be accused or deprived of his liberty, except in the case of a flagrant crime, if the Court of Appeals of the respective jurisdiction, in plenary, has not previously authorized the accusation declaring that there is cause for legal proceedings. This decision may be appealed to the Supreme Court. In event that a Representative or Senator is arrested for a flagrant crime, he shall be immediately placed at the disposal of the respective Court of Appeals, with corresponding summary information. The Court will then proceed, in accordance with the provisions of the preceding paragraph. From the moment that it is declared, through a final resolution, that there is cause for legal proceedings, the accused Representative or Senator shall be suspended from his office and subject to the competent judge:” Constitution of the Republic of Chile of 24 October 1980. Available at: https://www.Senate.cl/capitulo-v-congresonational/Senate/2012-01-16/100638.html. 203 Articles 151 and 152 of the Constitution of the Plurinational State of Bolivia regulate matters pertaining to immunity of assembly members in the following terms: “Article 151. I. Members of the Assembly shall enjoy personal privilege during their term of office, and afterwards they may not be criminally processed for their opinions, communications, representations, requests, questions, denouncements, proposals, expressions or any legislative act or act of reporting or control, which they formulate or undertake while performing their functions. II. The domicile, residence or home of members of the Assembly may not be violated, and they shall not be searched under any circumstance. This provision shall be applied to the vehicles of their personal or official use and to their legislative offices. Article 152. Members of the Assembly do not enjoy immunity. Preventive detention shall not be applied to them in criminal processes during their term of office, except in cases of flagrant crimes.” Constitution of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, February 7, 2009. Available at: https://web.Senate.gob.bo/Senate/marco-normativo. 204 In this regard, Article 186 of the Constitution of the Republic of Colombia, states: “Article 186. For the offenses that members of Congress may commit, the Supreme Court of Justice is the sole authority that may order their detention. In case of flagrante delicto, members of Congress must be apprehended and placed immediately at the disposal of said court. The Special Investigation Chamber of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice shall be responsible for investigating and charging members of Congress before the Special Trial Chamber of the same Criminal Chamber for the crimes committed. An appeal may be filed against rulings issued by the Special Trial Chamber of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. It shall be heard by the Criminal Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice […].” Constitution of the Republic of Colombia of July 20, 1991. Available at: http://www.secretariaSenate.gov.co/Senate/basedoc/constitucion_politica_1991_pr006.html#186. 205 Cf. Expert opinion rendered by Javier Hernández García, supra (evidence file, folios 10363 and 10364). 202 -34-