expert witness Soraia Mendes pointed out that, of the 12 witnesses who testified, seven knew Ms. Barbosa de Souza, all of them were asked about her possible use of drugs, and two were asked about her sexuality.255 148. According to the expert witness Soraia Mendes, the repetition of testimonial evidence sought to construct an image of Márcia Barbosa in order to cast doubt on the criminal responsibility of the then deputy for her homicide.256 Mendes stressed that not only were the witnesses questioned about the facts, but also about the social behavior, personality and sexuality of Márcia Barbosa, which would indicate an “investigation of the victim, her behavior, her reputation. This is something that fills the pages of the newspapers and is projected even more forcefully in the case file.”257 149. Similarly, during the criminal proceedings against Aércio Pereira de Lima before the Jury Court, the defense attorney requested the inclusion in the case file of more than 150 pages of newspaper articles referring to prostitution, drug overdoses and alleged suicide (supra para. 71), in order to link them to Márcia Barbosa with the intention of affecting her image. In addition, during the proceedings the defense attorney made various references to the victim’s sexual orientation, alleged drug addiction, suicidal behavior and depression.258 He also described Márcia as a “prostitute” and Aércio as “a family man and father” who was “seduced by the charms of a young woman” and who, in a moment of rage, had “made a mistake.” 259 150. Therefore, the Court concludes that the investigation and the criminal proceedings for the events related to the homicide of Márcia Barbosa de Souza had a gender-discriminatory character and were not conducted with a gender perspective in accordance with the special obligations established by the Convention of Belém do Pará. The State did not adopt measures aimed at ensuring material equality in the right of access to justice with respect to cases related to violence against women, to the detriment of the next of kin of Márcia Barbosa de Souza. This situation implies that, in the instant case, the right of access to justice without discrimination was not guaranteed, along with the right to equality. B.5 Conclusion 151. By virtue of what has been stated throughout this chapter, the Court finds that the State of Brazil violated the rights to judicial guarantees, to equality before the law and to judicial protection established in Articles 8(1), 24 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of said treaty, as well as the obligations set forth in Article 7(b) of the Convention of Belem do Para, to the detriment of Mrs. M.B.S. and Mr. S.R.S. Cf. Expert opinion of Soraia da Rosa Mendes, supra (evidence file, folio 10428). Cf. Expert opinion of Soraia da Rosa Mendes, supra (evidence file, folio 10422 and 10424). 257 Expert opinion of Soraia da Rosa Mendes, supra (evidence file, folio 10444). 258 Cf. Amicus curiae brief presented by the Human Rights and Environmental Law Clinic of the University of the State of Amazonas, supra (evidence file, folios 675 and 676). 259 Cf. Amicus curiae brief presented by the Human Rights and Environmental Law Clinic of the University of the State of Amazonas, supra (evidence file, folio 676). 255 256 -44-