43. This Court deems it pertinent to admit the statements provided by affidavit34 and during the public hearing35 insofar as they are in-keeping with the purpose defined by the President of the Court in the order that required them and with the purpose of this case. 44. The Court notes that, although its admissibility was not challenged, the expert opinion of Soraia da Rosa Mendes, proposed by the representatives of the alleged victims, was not rendered by affidavit; however, it was authenticated by means of the “QR code” digital signature system. At the time of its presentation, the representatives explained that it was not possible for a notary to authenticate the expert’s signature due to the situation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court considers that this justification is reasonable and is based on reasons of force majeure.36 Consequently, it admits the expert opinion of Mrs. Rosa Mendes insofar as it is in-keeping with the purpose defined by the President in the Order of November 27, 2020. VII FACTS 45. In this chapter, the Court will establish the facts of the case based on the factual framework submitted to the Court by the Inter-American Commission, the arguments presented by the parties and the evidence, as follows: A) the context of violence against women in Brazil; B) the relevant regulatory framework; C) the homicide of Márcia Barbosa de Souza, and D) the domestic proceedings. 46. The facts prior to the date of ratification of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction by Brazil (December 10, 1998) are included merely as part of the context and background of the case37 to facilitate the understanding of what happened and the analysis of the alleged human rights violations. Thus, the Court deems it pertinent to clarify that the facts related to the murder of Márcia Barbosa de Souza and some of the first investigative acts are outside the Court’s jurisdictional competence. A. 47. The context of violence against women in Brazil Violence against women in Brazil was, at the time of the facts of this case - and The Court received the statements of the following persons: M.B.S, statement rendered by affidavit on January 8, 2021 (evidence file, folios 10170 to 10174), accompanied by a video presented to the Court on January 14, 2021 (evidence file, video archive); Mt.B.S., statement rendered by affidavit on January 8, 2021 (evidence file, folios 10178 to 10182), accompanied by a video presented to the Court on January 14, 2021 (evidence file, video file); Luiz Albuquerque Couto, statement rendered by affidavit on January 7, 2021 (evidence file, folios 10187 to 10191); Wânia Pasinato, expert opinion rendered by affidavit on January 12, 2021 (evidence file, folios 10193 to 10333); Gilberta Santos Soares, expert psychosocial opinion rendered by affidavit on December 18, 2020 (evidence file, folios 10335 to 10358); Javier Hernández García, expert opinion rendered by affidavit on December 20, 2020 (evidence file, folios 10379 to 10395); Edvaldo Fernandes da Silva, expert opinion rendered by affidavit on January 14, 2021 (evidence file, folios 10480 to 10504); Geraldine Grace da Fonseca da Justa, statement rendered by affidavit on January 14, 2021 (evidence file, folios 10505 to 10515); Daniel Sarmento, expert opinion rendered by affidavit on January 14, 2021 (evidence file, folios 10127 to 10167), and Soraia da Rosa Mendes, expert opinion rendered on January 14, 2021 (evidence file, folios 10397 to 10478). 35 The Court received the statements of Valquíria Alencar, Melina Fachin, Henrique Marques Ribeiro and Carmen Hein of Campos at the public hearing held in this case. 36 See, statement of April 9, 2020, of the Inter-American Court, “Covid-19 and Human Rights: the problems and challenges must be addressed with a human rights perspective and respecting international obligations.” Available at: https://www.Courtidh.or.cr/tablas/alerta/comunicado/cp-27-2020.html. 37 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, para. 27, and Case of the Workers of the Fireworks Factory in Santo Antônio de Jesus and their Families v. Brazil, supra, para. 55. 34 -15-