of Justice submitted to the Legislative Assembly a new request to authorize the criminal prosecution of the then deputy,216 which was also denied. In fact, by means of an official letter sent by the President of the Legislative Assembly to the President of the Court of Justice in February 2000, the decision of the legislative body was reported in the following terms: [...] the Council of Ethics and Parliamentary Decorum, in a meeting held on September 29, 1999, decided to accept the defense's opinion to archive the request for renewal of authorization for the initiation of the criminal action against Deputy Aércio Pereira, due to the fact that the Plenary of this Chamber has denied an identical request under Resolution No. 614/98 […].217 118. As is evident from the text of both decisions cited above, the Court notes that the Legislative Assembly of Paraíba did not state any reasons, and therefore it is presumed that no analysis was carried out of a possible fumus persecutionis of the criminal action for which authorization was being sought. 119. Furthermore, the Court finds that the procedure followed after the second request for authorization had a series of irregularities - in addition to the lack of justification for the final decision- particularly the failure to observe the procedure established in the Internal Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Assembly as to which body of the Assembly should prepare the written opinion ("parecer") on the request, as well as the absence of a vote by the Plenary.218 In addition, according to the witness Valquíria Alencar, the opinion of the deputy rapporteur was not considered; one of the absent deputies could not be replaced by her substitute; and two female deputies were prevented from speaking.219 120. The Court notes that, since this is a case involving the violent death of a woman (supra para. 88), a matter that is clearly not related to the exercise of a deputy’s functions, the possibility of the political use of the criminal action should have been analyzed with even greater care and caution, taking into account the duty of strict due diligence in the investigation and punishment of acts of violence against women, as required by the Convention.220 On the contrary, the Court notes that both decisions taken by the Legislative Assembly of Paraíba demonstrate that the legislative body did not analyze or weigh the possibility of a fumus persecutionis in the prosecution of the Public Prosecutor’s Office on the one hand, and, on the other, the right of access to justice of the next of kin of Márcia Barbosa de Souza and the requirement to investigate with strict due diligence acts of violence against women. 121. In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that, at the time of the facts, the Paraíba constitutional and regulatory legal framework in Brazil arbitrarily hindered the access to justice of the next of kin of Márcia Barbosa Souza by not providing the criteria to be taken into account in the analysis of the request for prior authorization and the need to provide grounds for the decision or the deadline for the final resolution. Moreover, the lack of reasoning for the two decisions adopted by the Legislative Assembly of Paraíba indicates that a rigorous proportionality test was not carried out, which would have taken into account the impact on the right of access to justice of the persons who could be affected by such decisions. Cf. New letter requesting authorization to initiate criminal proceedings against Deputy Aércio Pereira de Lima, supra. 217 Cf. Official letter Nº 0008/GP from the President of the Legislative Assembly of Paraíba to the President of the Court of Justice, sent on February 9, 2000 (evidence file, folio 101). 218 Cf. Written version of the expert opinion of Melina Fachin, supra (evidence file, folio 10520 to 10570). 219 Cf. Statement of the witness Valquíria Alencar at the public hearing held on February 3 and 4, 2021. 220 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 258, and Case of Vicky Hernández et al. v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 26, 2021. Series C No. 422, para. 134. 216 -37-