74. On August 27, 1998, the Police Commissioner prepared a new report ratifying the terms of the previous report.121 On September 4, 1998, the Prosecutor requested that the file of the police investigation be sent to the Attorney General of Justice, who was competent to file the criminal action against the then deputy Aércio Pereira de Lima, since he enjoyed privileged immunity.122 On September 15, 1998, the case was received by the Attorney General’s Office.123 (infra paras. 75 to 81). At the same time, the investigations related to the other accused, who did not have such privilege of jurisdiction, continued to be conducted by the police124 (infra paras. 82 to 87). An account of these two proceedings is given below: D.1 The investigations conducted by the Attorney General’s Office of the state of Paraíba regarding Aércio Pereira de Lima 75. Owing to the parliamentary immunity enjoyed by the then state deputy Aércio Pereira de Lima, the Attorney General of Justice filed the criminal action before the Court of Justice of the state of Paraíba, on October 8, 1998, with the proviso that it could only be initiated if the Legislative Assembly allowed it.125 On October 14, 1998, the relevant authorization was requested from the Legislative Assembly,126 which rejected it on December 17, 1998, by means of Resolution No. 614/98.127 On March 31, 1999, the Judiciary reiterated its request to the Legislative Assembly,128 which was also denied on September 29, 1999.129 76. On April 12, 2002, the Judicial Coordination of the Court of Justice of the state of Paraíba informed the Presidency of the Court about Constitutional Amendment 35/2001 (infra paras. 58-64).130 Thus, on April 16, 2002, the magistrate of the Court of Justice in charge of the case file sent it to the Attorney General’s Office for its opinion.131 The Attorney General of Justice submitted his written opinion, on October 21, 2002, arguing that, due to the amendments introduced by EC 35/2001, the Judiciary should continue with the case.132 77. On February 3, 2003, the reporting magistrate of the case ordered that the Regional Electoral Court of Paraíba (hereinafter "TRE/PB") be consulted as to whether Mr. Aércio Pereira de Lima had been elected to any office in the October 2002 elections so that it could decide whether the Court of Justice had jurisdiction to prosecute him.133 On February 11, 2003, the TRE/PB informed the magistrate that Mr. Pereira de Lima had not been elected to any office.134 Therefore, the magistrate sent the case to the Court of First Instance of João Pessoa, given Cf. Police report of August 27, 1998 (evidence file, folios 67 to 70). Cf. Request of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of September 4, 1998 (evidence file, folios 72 to 74). 123 Cf. Acknowledgement of receipt from the Attorney General's Office (evidence file, folio 75). 124 Cf. Letter from the Attorney General’s Office of September 14, 1998 (evidence file, folios 4132 and 4133). 125 Cf. Complaint of the Public Prosecutor’s Office against Deputy Aércio Pereira of October 8, 1998 (evidence file, folios 10 to 16). 126 Cf. Letter requesting authorization to open criminal proceedings against Deputy Aércio Pereira de Lima, of October 14, 1998 (evidence file, folios 25). 127 Cf. Resolution of the Legislative Assembly of Paraíba denying the request for authorization to criminally prosecute then Deputy Aércio Pereira de Lima, published on December 18, 1998 (evidence file, folios 27 to 30). 128 Cf. New letter requesting authorization to open criminal proceedings against then Deputy Aércio Pereira de Lima, of March 31, 1999 (evidence file, folio 32). 129 Cf. Letter Nº 0008/GP from the President of the Legislative Assembly of Paraíba to the President of the Court of Justice, dated February 9, 2000 (evidence file, folio 101). 130 Cf. Communication of April 12, 2002 (evidence file, folios 103 and 104). 131 Cf. Order to send the case file to the Attorney General's Office of April 16, 2002 (evidence file, folio 108). 132 Cf. Written opinion of the Attorney General of October 21, 2002 (evidence file, folios 111 to 114). 133 Cf. Order of the reporting magistrate of February 3, 2003 (evidence file, folio 118). 134 Cf. Letter Nº 24/2003/SJ of February 14, 2003 (evidence file, folio 120). 121 122 -24-