information submitted by the petitioners on October 3, 2006, the Commission notes that on December 20, 2001, there was a change in the domestic law in relation to legislative immunity, with the approval by the National Congress of Constitutional Amendment No. 35/2001, which determined that the criminal action against members of the legislature could be admitted with the prior authorization of the legislative body to which they belong, thereby fixing the defect alleged, thus a study of the possible breach of that obligation should be found inadmissible. 47. In addition, the Commission must bear in mind that the petitioners allege violations of the rights enshrined in Articles 3, 4, and 5 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. 48. As transcribed supra, Article 12 of the Convention of Belém do Pará establishes that all petitions alleging facts violative of the rights guaranteed in that instrument, expressly contained in its Article 7, are justiciable before the organs of the interAmerican system, Article 7 provides fundamental commitments. 49. Applying Article 12 of the Convention of Belém do Pará transcribed supra, this organ must find inadmissible the alleged violations of Articles 3, 4, and 5 of that instrument. 50. Mindful of what is stated, the Inter-American Commission considers that, if the facts stated with respect to the violation of the right to life, the right to equality before the law and judicial guarantees, access to justice, and women’s rights, against the alleged victim and her next-of-kin, are shown, the instant case would tend to establish a possible violation of the guarantees safeguarded by Articles 4, 8(1), 24, and 25 of the American Convention, and Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, for prima facie, with the factual description of the situation, it has been clearly shown that we find ourselves before a potential violation of the rights guaranteed by these provisions. 51. The IACHR considers that the facts explained above characterize possible violations of Article 24 of the American Convention in connection of Article 1(1) of the same instrument. The Inter-American Commission observes that petitioner’s allegation is based on facts that occurred on a context of impunity in relation to violent acts by the justice administration, affecting disproportionably women as a group, and tend for the repetition of these acts. Within this pattern of impunity, attitudes from judicial employees based on sociocultural discriminatory concepts that affect mainly women can be found. The mentioned pattern allegedly results in extreme and unjustifiable procedural dilates in cases of violence against women, which is argued in this case, despite of the legislative reform related to the parliamentary immunity in 2001. 52. The possible violations will be analyzed in conjunction with the general obligation provided for at Article 1(1) of the American Convention. V. CONCLUSIONS 53. Based on the foregoing considerations of fact and law, and without prejudging on the merits, the Commission concludes that this case satisfies the admissibility requirements set forth at Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, DECIDES: