whether administrative, legislative or judicial, whose decisions may affect the rights of individuals, and that such decisions must be adopted with full respect for the guarantees of due process of law.206 In this regard, Article 8 of the Convention enshrines the guidelines of due process of law, which consists of a set of requirements that must be observed in the procedural instances, so that individuals are in a position to adequately defend their rights before any type of act by the State that could affect them.207 110. Thus, in order to avoid an arbitrary decision, the Court considers that the legislative body must give reasons for its decision on whether or not to lift procedural immunity. This is so, because the decision will necessarily impact both the rights of the parliamentarian in relation to the exercise of his functions, as well as the right of access to justice of the victims of the alleged criminal offenses attributed to this same parliamentarian. Obviously, since it is a legislative body, it cannot be required to provide the grounds for a judicial decision. As observed in Brazil and other States Parties to the Convention, the final decision of the legislative chamber involves a vote on a written opinion or report of a technical committee of that chamber on the request for a waiver of parliamentary immunity. Consequently, the technical report must contain the reasons for the decision adopted.208 111. In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that the decision on the application or waiver of parliamentary procedural immunity by the parliamentary body, in a specific case, must: i) follow an expeditious procedure, provided for by law or in the rules of procedure of the legislative body, with clear rules and respecting the guarantees of due process; ii) include a strict proportionality test, whereby the accusation made against the parliamentarian must be analyzed taking into account the impact on the right of access to justice of the persons who may be affected and the consequences of preventing the prosecution of a criminal act, and iii) be substantiated and have reasons linked to the identification and justification of the existence or not of a fumus persecutionis in the exercise of the criminal action directed against the parliamentarian. 112. In the instant case, according to the Brazilian legislation in force at the time of the facts of the case, in order for a federal or state parliamentarian to be criminally prosecuted, prior authorization was required from the legislative chamber to which he or she belonged (supra para. 58). Therefore, the authorization of the corresponding parliamentary body was a prerequisite for any criminal action to be brought against one of its members. 113. In this regard, the Court agrees with the view expressed by the expert witnesses in this case that the legal framework at the time of the facts made the possibility of lifting parliamentary immunity illusory and allowed for arbitrary and corporatist decisions by the legislative body.209 According to the expert Melina Fachin, parliamentary immunity as it was Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, para. 71, and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2020. Series C No. 419, para. 88. 207 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, supra, para. 69, and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, supra, para. 88. 208 The European Court of Human Rights stated that: "The effect of this lack of reasoning, combined with the lack of clearly defined objective criteria as regards the conditions for lifting immunity, was to deprive the applicant of the means of defending his rights and of the possibility of knowing on what basis the National Assembly, the body ultimately responsible for deciding whether to lift parliamentary immunity, would adopt its decision.” ECHR, Concurring Opinion of Judge Malinverni regarding the Case of Kart v. Turkey [GS], No. 8917/05. Judgment of December 3, 2009. 209 The expert witness Fachin mentioned a survey published by the newspaper “Folha of São Paulo” which indicated that, between 1991 and 1999, at the federal level, of the 151 requests for prior authorization presented by the Supreme Federal Court to the Chamber of Deputies, 2 were granted, 62 were denied and 87 were not analyzed prior to the conclusion of the terms of office of the parliamentarians or their resignation. Similarly, a survey carried out by the newspaper “Correio da Paraíba” found that between 1992 and 1999, the Legislative Assembly of the state of Paraíba denied more than 15 requests for authorization to criminally prosecute state deputies. Cf. Written version 206 -35-