Article 1. The crimes that result from discrimination or prejudice based on race, color, ethnicity, religion, or national origin shall be punished as provided for in this law. (Language determined by Law No. 9,459, of May 15, 1997) Article 4. Denying or hindering employment in a private company. Penalty: two to five years of confinement 2. 49. As mentioned, the complaint filed before the Commission is for unwarranted delay by the State in providing the victims with the judicial protection they sought. This has been shown by the files introduced by the petitioners in the initial petition and in the reply, and by the State itself in its answer to the IACHR. Accordingly, there is no dispute as to the delay in hearing the appeal. 50. According to information provided by the petitioner, and received by the IACHR on September 6, 2006, the judgment that has become res judicata (which indicates that there are no more remedies to be pursued) was not yet carried out because the record of the proceeding still needs to be forwarded to one of the Courts of Criminal Enforcement (Varas de Execução Criminal) of the District of São Paulo, so that if the accused is found, the judgment and sentence of confinement can be enforced. 51. Therefore, the judgment has yet to be carried out, as the matter has not been forwarded to the competent court, as shown by a certificate provided by the petitioner, and also because the whereabouts of Mr. Munehiro Tahara remain unknown, according to what the petitioner reported in its last submission, dated September 6, 2006. 2. Time period for submission 52. This complaint is subject to the hypothesis of Article 46.2.c of the American Convention, mindful that it is argued that there was unwarranted delay in the decision. The petition so arguing was submitted within a reasonable time, having seen that more than three years went by without any decision on the appeal filed by the alleged victims. Accordingly, the requirement of timeliness is satisfied. 3. Duplication of Procedures and Res Judicata 53. As regards duplication of procedures, it does not appear that the complaint under consideration has been submitted to any other body, and the State has not indicated anything in this regard. Accordingly, the Commission considers that the petition is admissible pursuant to Article 46.1.c and Article 47.d of the American Convention. 4. Characterization of the Facts 54. The Commission considers that prima facie the facts alleged by the petitioner tend to establish a violation of the American Convention on Human Rights, at Articles 1, 8, 24, and 25, for possible violations of the obligation to respect rights; the right of every person to be heard, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time; the right to equality before the law; and the right to a simple and prompt remedy before a court or tribunal, of Ms. Neusa dos Santos Nascimento and Ms. Gisele Ferreira. 55. As regards the declaration made by the State to the effect that the petition is out of order, for the reasons stated supra, the Commission considers that 2 https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/Leis/L7716.htm.