135. In the instant case, the Court does not find it necessary to analyze the guarantee of reasonable time in light of the elements established in its jurisprudence.238 Indeed, the Court notes that the delay in the process was due mainly to the nearly five years during which the criminal action could not be initiated, owing to the arbitrary refusal by the Legislative Assembly of Paraiba to grant prior authorization for the criminal prosecution of the then deputy Aércio Pereira de Lima, in application of parliamentary immunity. 136. The Court considers that the arbitrary application of parliamentary immunity, the excessive delay and the sense of impunity generated by the lack of a judicial response aggravated the situation of Márcia Barbosa’s next of kin, especially given the asymmetry of economic and political power existing between the accused and the next of kin. 137. Therefore, taking into account the foregoing considerations and given that almost 10 years elapsed from the facts of this case until the criminal conviction in the court of first instance, the Court concludes that Brazil violated the guarantee of reasonable time in the investigation and criminal proceedings related to the homicide of Márcia Barbosa de Souza. B.4 The alleged use of gender stereotypes in the investigations 138. Regarding the principle of equality before the law and non-discrimination, the Court has indicated that the notion of equality springs directly from the oneness of the human family and is linked to the essential dignity of the individual. Thus it is incompatible with any situation in which a specific group is considered superior and is given privileged treatment; or, to the contrary, that it is considered inferior and is treated with hostility or otherwise subjected to discrimination in the enjoyment of rights which are accorded to others not so classified. 239 At the current stage of evolution of international law, the fundamental principle of equality and non-discrimination has entered the domain of jus cogens, and the juridical framework of the entire legal system rests on it. Consequently, States must refrain from carrying out actions that, in any way, directly or indirectly, create situations of discrimination de jure or de facto.240 139. The Court has also indicated that, while the general obligation under Article 1(1) of the American Convention refers to the obligation of the State to respect and to ensure “without discrimination” the rights contained in that treaty, Article 24 protects the right to “equal Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 145, and Case of the Workers of the Fireworks Factory in Santo Antônio de Jesus v. Brazil, supra, para. 222. 238 The Court has established that the concept of reasonable time should be analyzed in each specific case, in relation to the total duration of the process, which could also include the execution of the final judgment. Thus, it has considered four elements to determine whether the guarantee of reasonable time was met, namely: a) the complexity of the matter; b) the procedural activity of the interested party; c) the conduct of the judicial authorities, and d) the impact on the legal situation of the alleged victim or victims. The Court recalls that it is up to the State to demonstrate the reasons why a proceeding or several proceedings have lasted more than a reasonable time. Otherwise, the Court has broad powers to make its own analysis of this matter. The Court also reiterates that it is necessary to consider the total duration of the process, from the first procedural act until the final judgment is handed down, including any possible remedies that may be pursued. Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, paras. 71 and 72; Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 156, and Case of Ríos Avalos et al. v. Paraguay, supra, para. 166 and 167. 239 Cf. Proposed Amendments of the Naturalization Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica. Advisory Opinion OC-4/84 of January 19, 1984. Series A No. 4, para. 55, and Case of the Workers of the Fireworks Factory in Santo Antônio de Jesus and their Families v. Brazil, supra, para. 82. 240 Cf. Juridical condition and rights of undocumented migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of September 17, 2003. Series A. No. 18, paras. 101, 103 and 104, and Case of the Workers of the Fireworks Factory in Santo Antônio de Jesus and their Families v. Brazil, supra, para. 182. -41-