the legislative body as a whole180 and of its members,181 and cannot be conceived as the personal privilege of a parliamentarian. To this extent, it would fulfil the role of an institutional guarantee of democracy.182 However, under no circumstances can parliamentary immunity be transformed into a mechanism for impunity; if this were to occur, it would erode the rule of law, would contravene the principle of equality before the law and would make access to justice illusory for those affected.183 101. In Brazil, as mentioned previously (supra paras. 58 to 64), at the time of the facts, the Constitution established that “deputies and senators are inviolable on account of their opinions, words and votes,” and that from the “date of issuance of their certificate of electoral victory, members of the National Congress may not be arrested, except in flagrante delicto of an unbailable crime, nor may they be criminally prosecuted without prior authorization by the respective Chamber.”184 According to Article 27, paragraph 1 of the Constitution,185 the provision regarding parliamentary immunity also applied to state deputies. Likewise, the Constitution of the state of Paraíba contained an identical rule.186 Currently, since the approval of Constitutional Amendment 35/2001,187 prior authorization from the legislature is not required to criminally prosecute a parliamentarian; rather, the National Congress, and also the state legislative assemblies, have the prerogative to suspend criminal proceedings initiated against one of their members. The Supreme Federal Court of Brazil has expressed this same position in its decision regarding the Direct Action of Unconstitutionality No. 5526 of October 11, 2017, stating that “[…] the immunities of the Legislative Branch, as well as the guarantees of the Executive, Judicial [branches] and of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, are provisions that protect the Powers and Institutions of the State against influences, pressures, coercion and from internal and external interference and must be assured for the equilibrium of Republican and Democratic Government. […] [T]he immunities are not related to the figure of the parliamentarian, but to his powers, with the purpose of preserving the Legislative Branch from eventual excesses or abuses by the Executive or Judicial [branches] being enshrined as a guarantee of its independence before the other constitutional powers and maintaining its popular representation.” Cf. Expert opinion of Edvaldo Fernandes da Silva rendered by affidavit on January 13, 2021 (evidence file, folio 10061). 181 See, for example, Article 5 of the Internal Rules of the European Parliament. Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/RULES-9-2020-02-03_ES.pdf. 182 Cf. Expert opinion of Edvaldo Fernandes da Silva, rendered by affidavit supra (evidence file, folio 10062). The European Court of Human Rights has also stated that the varying degrees of parliamentary immunity conferred by the States: “pursue the legitimate aims of protecting free speech in Parliament and maintaining the separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary. Different forms of parliamentary immunity may indeed serve to protect the effective political democracy that constitutes one of the cornerstones of the Convention system, particularly where they protect the autonomy of the legislature and the parliamentary opposition. The guarantees offered by both types of parliamentary immunity (non-liability and inviolability) serve to ensure the independence of Parliament in the performance of its task. Inviolability helps to achieve the full independence of Parliament by preventing any possibility of politically motivated criminal proceedings (fumus persecutionis) and thereby protecting the opposition from pressure or abuse on the part of the majority […]. The protection afforded to free speech in Parliament serves to protect the interests of Parliament as a whole and should not be understood as protection afforded solely to individual parliamentarians. Cf. ECHR. Case of Karácsony et al. v. Hungary [GS], No. 42461/13 and 44357/13, Judgment of May 17, 2016, paras. 138 and 146. 183 Parliamentary immunity was historically conceived for the purpose of protecting legislators against the “possible use of criminal proceedings with the intention of disturbing the functioning of the Chambers or altering the composition granted them by the will of the people.” However, as the expert witness Javier García emphasized, the meaning and scope of parliamentary immunities have changed with the profound constitutional transformations both in Europe, after the Second World War, and in Latin America, since the 1980s. Cf. Expert opinion rendered by affidavit by Javier Hernández García, supra (evidence file, folios 10361 and 10362). On the other hand, it is true that the higher the degree of development of the system of checks and balances and of institutional tools of equilibrium in the exercise of constitutional powers, the lower the presumption of politically motivated criminal prosecution (fumus persecutionis) in relation to judicial or procedural actions initiated against a parliamentarian. Cf. Expert opinion rendered before a notary public by Javier Hernández García, supra (evidence file, folio 10362). 184 Cf. Original text of Article 53 of the Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil, supra. 185 Cf. Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil, supra, Article 27, paragraph 1. 186 Cf. Constitution of the state of Paraíba, supra. 187 Cf. Constitutional Amendment N. 35, supra. 180 -31-