191. In addition, in 2012, the CEDAW Committee expressed concern about the lack of accurate and consistent data on violence against women in Brazil.289 Similarly, the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry of the Brazilian Federal Senate, created in 2012 to facilitate the implementation of the Maria da Penha Law, also identified, in 2016, the difficulty of collecting data on the situation of violence against women in the country given the existence of different databases: from the police, from different health entities, from the justice sector, and also at different levels.290 192. Article 38 of the Maria da Penha Law establishes the requirement to include statistics on domestic and intra-family violence based on data from the bodies of the justice and security systems.291 From the evidence in the case file, this precept has not been observed. In this regard, the expert Henrique Marques Ribeiro pointed out that this regulatory provision has not been implemented in practice.292 193. Taking into account all of the above, the Court considers that it is necessary to collect comprehensive information on the various forms of gender-based violence in order to assess the real magnitude of this phenomenon and, by virtue of this, to formulate the relevant public policies and design strategies to prevent and eradicate further acts of violence and discrimination against women. Therefore, the Court orders the State to design within one year, and implement, within three years, through the relevant federal public agency, a national and centralized system for the collection of data disaggregated by age, race, social class, victim profile, place of occurrence, profile of the aggressor, relationship with the victim, means and methods used, among other variables, that allow for the quantitative and qualitative analysis of acts of violence against women and, in particular, violent deaths of women. In addition, the number of cases that were effectively prosecuted should be specified, identifying the number of indictments, convictions and acquittals. This information should be disseminated annually by the State through the corresponding report and be made accessible to the population in general. The identity of the victims must also be protected. To this end, the State shall submit an annual report to the Court for three years after the implementation of the data collection system, indicating the actions that have been taken in that regard.293 E.2 Implementation of training and awareness-raising programs 194. In Chapter VIII of this judgment, the Court concluded that the State did not act with due diligence in the investigation of the other possible participants in the murder of Márcia Barbosa de Souza (supra para. 133) and that the investigation and criminal proceedings were discriminatory in nature, due to the use of gender stereotypes, thus violating the right of access to justice of the next of kin of Mrs. Barbosa de Souza (supra para. 150). Cf. UN, CEDAW Committee. Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women - Brazil. Doc. CEDAW/C/BRA/CO/7. March 23, 2012, para. 18. 290 Cf. Expert opinion rendered by Henrique Marques Ribeiro, supra. In his statement at the hearing the expert witness Henrique Marques Ribeiro mentioned that the Senate recently approved a draft bill for a national data policy or policies regarding domestic violence, which contemplates the development of a new system to integrate the data and different services for women in situations of violence. 291 Article 38 of Law N. 11.340 of August 7, 2006. Available at: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato20042006/2006/lei/l11340.htm. Also, the Committee of Experts of the Follow-up Mechanism to the Belém do Pará Convention (MESECVI) recommends that all States Parties “develop data banks, research, and statistics that enable them to assess the magnitude and problems of femicide in their countries and to monitor State progress and setbacks in this regard.” Cf. OAS, Committee of Experts of the Follow-up Mechanism to the Belém do Pará Convention (MESECVI), Declaration on Femicide, OAS/Ser.L/II.7.10, MESECVI/CEVI/DEC. 1/08, August 15, 2008 Available at: https://www.oas.org/es/mesecvi/docs/DeclaracionFemicide-ES.pdf. 292 Cf. Expert opinion of Henrique Marques Ribeiro, supra. 293 Cf. Case of Azul Rojas Marín et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 12, 2020. Series C No. 402, para. 252, and Case of Vicky Hernández et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 179. 289 -53-