great complexity, given that based on the police investigation, there was sufficient evidence to initiate the process. It indicated that parliamentary immunity was the main cause of the delay, but that other delays caused by the State authorities also contributed. Thus, it concluded that the State violated the guarantee of reasonable time. 93. With regard to due diligence in the investigation of other possible perpetrators, the Commission noted that the police report of July 21, 1998, did not specify the acts that constituted the crimes of the then state deputy and the four other suspects. It alleged that not all the evidence was examined - without any justification in this regard- in order to determine responsibility, and that the investigation was closed through lack of evidence. Thus, it concluded that the State failed in its duty to investigate with due diligence. 94. In addition, the Commission determined the separate violation of Article 7 of the Belém do Pará Convention. It considered that the impunity of the then state deputy was an act of tolerance on the part of the State and argued that this was not reflected exclusively in this case, but rather in a systematic manner. It added that “it is a tolerance of the entire system, which only perpetuates the roots and the psychological, social and historical factors that perpetuate and feed violence against women.”179 It concluded that the State failed in its obligation to prevent, investigate and punish violence against women. 95. The representatives alleged that, after the recognition of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction, the State carried out certain actions and omissions that violated the rights of Márcia Barbosa de Souza and her next of kin. They specified that the State violated the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection by a) preventing the investigation of Mr. Pereira de Lima’s responsibility through the mechanism of parliamentary immunity, which resulted in a delay in the criminal proceedings, which meant that the then deputy was never punished for the facts; b) failing to investigate all the suspects, even though there were indications of their involvement; and c) unjustifiably delaying the processing of the investigations. They also pointed out that parliamentary immunity in this case did not respect the principles of reasonableness and proportionality and its application ended up violating the rights of access to justice and judicial guarantees of the alleged victims. They argued that, despite multiple indications of the involvement of the then deputy Aércio Pereira de Lima in the murder of Márcia Barbosa de Souza, and despite the absence of political motivation behind the accusation, parliamentary immunity was applied to acts of the utmost gravity, without respecting due process and without providing grounds for that decision. They emphasized that, taking into account that the crime in this case is femicide, no exclusion of responsibility should be applicable. They also pointed out that the procedure established in Brazilian law for authorizing the prosecution of the then deputy was not respected. 96. The representatives also alleged the violation of Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará in relation to Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. In this regard, they argued that, taking into account that the case sub judice concerns the murder of a young woman and involves the participation of a high-ranking State official, the authorities should have acted with special diligence and that this duty was further reinforced by the special obligations deriving from the Convention of Belém do Pará. 97. The State denied any violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention and Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, since it considered that it had provided adequate and effective remedies for the protection of the rights allegedly violated, regarding which the regular procedure was followed in the domestic jurisdiction. It emphasized that there were no State acts intended to prevent access to these remedies or any undue delay in their processing. 179 IACHR. Merits Report No. 54/01, supra, para. 55. -29-