indicated that he had already taken sufficient steps, expressly stating that he could not carry out all the procedures requested by the Public Prosecutor’s Office.162Subsequently, in April 2001, the Public Prosecutor’s Office left a note in the investigation file to the Commissioner in charge of the case, warning him that he could be committing the crime of disobedience if he did not fully comply, within 30 days, with the procedures previously requested.163 In June164 and August165 2001, the Public Prosecutor’s Office again asked the police authority to comply fully with the inquiries ordered previously. 86. In September of 2001, the Commissioner in charge of the investigations reported that, due to the backlog of work, he had not completed the procedures required by the Public Prosecutor’s Office.166 Thus, in December 2001, the Public Prosecutor’s Office again requested the aforementioned procedures.167 In March 2002, the Commissioner again reported that it was not possible to proceed with the actions required due to the backlog of work caused by lack of personnel and the lack of vehicles in working order. 168 Likewise, in December 2002, the Commissioner stated that he had been unable to complete the procedures ordered.169 87. In March 2003, the Public Prosecutor’s Office recommended the dismissal of the case due to insufficient evidence,170 which was ordered by the judge.171 VIII MERITS 88. The case sub judice concerns the murder of Márcia Barbosa de Souza, of which the then state deputy Aércio Pereira de Lima was accused, and the alleged international responsibility of Brazil for the violation of the right of access to justice of the mother and father of Márcia Barbosa de Souza, as well as the obligation to investigate this crime with the required strict due diligence and within a reasonable time. Although the facts related to the homicide are not within the Court’s temporal jurisdiction, the Court finds that it is plausible that the homicide of Ms. Barbosa de Souza was committed for gender reasons, especially because of the asymmetrical situation of economic and political power with respect to her male aggressor, as well as the way in which her body was found 172- in a vacant lot - with traces of sand, which indicated that she had possibly been dragged, with signs of having been beaten, abrasions on her forehead, nose and lips, bruises distributed on her face and her back and with marks showing that she had been subjected to a compressive action on her neck (supra para. 68). of Deputy Aércio Pereira de Lima and M.C.C.S. to clarify the large number of calls that both made to the congressman between June 17 and 18; and the cross-examination of U.M.S. to see if he had additional information on the people who had helped the then deputy to remove Márcia’s body from inside the Trevo Motel. Cf. Statement of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of March 8, 2001, (evidence file, folios 258 to 260). 162 Cf. Statement of the Police Commissioner of April 2, 2001 (evidence file, folios 5594 to 5595). 163 Cf. Statement of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of April 23, 2001 (evidence file, folio 262). 164 Cf. Statement of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of June 28, 2001 (evidence file, folio 263). 165 Cf. Statement of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of August 22, 2001 (evidence file, folio 264). 166 Cf. Statement of the Police Commissioner of September 27, 2001 (evidence file, folio 265). 167 Cf. Statement of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of December 28, 2001 (evidence file, folio 266). 168 Cf. Statement of the Police Commissioner of March 11, 2002 (evidence file, folio 5805). 169 Cf. Statement of the Police Commissioner of December 12, 2002 (evidence file, folio 5808). 170 Cf. Written opinion of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of March 12, 2003 (evidence file, folios 279 to 280). 171 Cf. Decision of the judge issued on March 18, 2003 (evidence file, folios 5825 and 5826). According to Article 18 of the Brazilian Code of Criminal Procedure, “[a]fter the judicial authority orders the dismissal of the investigation, […] the police authority may conduct further investigations, if it learns of other evidence”. 172 Cf. Case of Véliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 178. -27-