## Facts

- Maria da Penha Maia Fernandes suffered years of domestic violence by her husband, Marco Antônio Heredia Viveiros.
- In May 1983, he shot her while she slept, causing irreversible paraplegia and lasting medical consequences.
- Shortly after her return from the hospital, he attacked her again, allegedly attempting to electrocute her in a shower.
- Brazil initiated criminal proceedings in 1984.
- A 1991 conviction and 15-year sentence was overturned on appeal in 1994.
- A second trial in 1996 resulted in conviction and a 10-year sentence, followed by additional appeals and continued non-execution.
- More than 15–17 years after the attacks, the criminal process had not produced an effective, final outcome, and the victim remained without timely judicial protection.
- Petitioners alleged the case reflected broader state tolerance and impunity for violence against women, supported by evidence of very low conviction rates and limited effectiveness of existing institutional measures.

## Issues

1. Whether Brazil’s prolonged delay and ineffectiveness in investigating, prosecuting, and punishing the perpetrator violated the victim’s rights to a fair trial and judicial protection.
2. Whether Brazil’s failure to act with due diligence in response to domestic violence against women breached its obligations to prevent, investigate, and punish such violence under regional human rights instruments.
3. Whether state tolerance of domestic violence constituted discriminatory denial of access to justice in practice.

## Decision

- The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights held Brazil internationally responsible for unjustified delay and ineffective criminal proceedings.
- The Commission found violations of American Convention on Human Rights Articles 8 (fair trial) and 25 (judicial protection), in relation to Article 1(1) (obligation to respect and ensure rights).
- For relevant periods before Brazil’s ratification of the American Convention, the Commission found violations of American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man Articles II (equality) and XVIII (right to justice).
- The Commission found a violation of Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará based on failure to act with due diligence to prevent, investigate, and punish violence against women and to ensure effective remedies.
- The Commission recommended completion of the criminal process with due diligence, reparations to the victim, and systemic measures (legal, administrative, and training reforms) to address state tolerance of domestic violence.

## Legal Principles

- A state’s duty to “respect and ensure” rights includes due diligence obligations to prevent, investigate, and punish serious private violence when authorities know or should know of the risk and fail to respond effectively.
- Judicial remedies must be effective in practice; formal availability of procedures does not satisfy fair-trial and judicial-protection guarantees if proceedings are unreasonably delayed or ineffectual.
- Unjustified delay in criminal justice processes can amount to denial of justice and a violation of the right to be heard within a reasonable time and to obtain prompt judicial protection.
- Under the Convention of Belém do Pará, states must pursue, without delay, policies and measures to prevent, punish, and eradicate violence against women, including ensuring accessible and effective remedies.
- Persistent impunity and institutional non-response to domestic violence may engage state responsibility as tolerance or acquiescence and may reflect discriminatory denial of access to justice.

## Conclusion

The Commission concluded that Brazil’s prolonged, ineffective handling of the victim’s case—within a wider pattern of impunity for domestic violence—constituted denial of justice and breach of due diligence duties, requiring both individual reparations and systemic reforms to prevent and address violence against women.


Maria da Penha Maia Fernandes v. Brazil, Case 12.051, Inter-Am. Comm’n H.R., Report No. 54/01, OEA/Ser. L./V/II.111, doc. 20 rev. at 704 (2001)