regulated at the federal level and in the state of Paraíba, prior to EC 35/2001, “implied impunity.”210 Similarly, the expert witness Edvaldo Fernandes da Silva stated that, “the parliamentary immunity designed in the 1988 Constitution needed to be reformed,” since it entailed risks of impunity.211 Moreover, Brazil did not dispute the assertion of the Commission and the representatives that the federal constitutional provision in force at the time of the facts, which was reflected in the Constitution of Paraíba, was inadequate and would have hindered the progress of the investigations into the murder of Márcia Barbosa. It even mentioned in its answering brief that “the Brazilian State undertook significant efforts [...] to adapt the regulatory framework on this issue, improving the constitutional provision on parliamentary immunity, in light of the precepts of the [American Convention].”212 114. In addition, and taking into consideration the evidence in the case file, the Court finds that there was a procedure provided for in the Internal Rules of Procedure and in the Code of Ethics of the Legislative Assembly of the state of Paraíba for processing a request to lift the parliamentary immunity of a deputy. However, these rules did not clearly establish whether the competent body to issue a written opinion on the request was the Constitutional Committee or the Ethics Council. It should also be noted that neither the constitutional provisions, nor the Internal Rules of Procedure of the Assembly of Paraíba,213 established the criteria to be evaluated in a decision to grant the aforementioned prior authorization. Therefore, the Court considers that there was no procedure with clear rules to be followed for deciding on the application or lifting of parliamentary immunity. 115. In view of the foregoing considerations, the Court understands that the way in which parliamentary immunity was regulated at the time of the facts of this case, both at the federal level and in the state of Paraíba, was contrary to the right of access to justice and to the duty to adopt provisions of domestic law. 116. Regarding the reasons for the decisions of the Legislative Assembly of Paraíba, the Court deems it pertinent to transcribe them below in order to carry out the corresponding analysis. Thus, on December 17, 1998,214 the Legislative Assembly rejected the request of the Court of Justice of Paraíba to initiate criminal proceedings against the then state deputy Aércio Pereira de Lima, through Resolution No. 614/98, which determined, in verbis: The Committee of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Paraiba, based on art. 219, paragraph 3, III, "b", of Resolution no. 469 (Internal Rules of Procedure of the Assembly), and art. 42, IV, of Resolution no. 599 (Code of Ethics and Parliamentary Decorum) hereby makes known that the Plenary, in the Extraordinary Session held on December 17, 1998, approved and hereby enacts the following: [...] Art. 1 The request by the State Court of Justice for leave to criminally prosecute state Deputy Aércio Pereira de Lima, the subject of the file, is denied [...] Art. 2 This Resolution enters into force on the date of its publication [...]215 117. Subsequently, on March 31, 1999, after the beginning of a new legislature and taking into account the reelection of Mr. Pereira de Lima to the post of state deputy, the Paraíba Court of the expert opinion presented by Melina Fachin of January 15, 2021 (evidence file, folio 10558). 210 Cf. Expert opinion rendered by Melina Fachin at the public hearing held on February 3 and 4, 2021. 211 Cf. Expert opinion rendered by affidavit by Edvaldo Fernandes da Silva, supra (evidence file, folios 10070 and 10078). 212 Answering brief of the State, February 17, 2020, para. 197 (merits file, folio 264 and 265). 213 Cf. Internal Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Assembly of the state of Paraíba, supra (evidence file, folios 5993 to 6090). 214 The Court considers it pertinent to clarify that this decision of the Legislative Assembly of Paraíba is the first fact of the case that is within the Court’s temporal jurisdiction. 215 Decision of the Legislative Assembly of Paraíba denying the request for authorization to criminally prosecute Deputy Aércio Pereira de Lima, supra. -36-