I INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE DISPUTE 1. The case submitted to the Court. On November 17, 2017, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court the case of Alexander Yovany Gómez Virula and family with regard to the Republic of Guatemala (hereinafter also “the State”). The Commission indicated that the case related “to the disappearance and subsequent murder of Ale[xander] Yovany Gómez Virula in March 1995.” The Commission concluded that “the Guatemalan State was responsible for violating the rights to life, personal integrity and personal liberty of Mr. Gómez Virula because it failed to take any measures to search for the victim on becoming aware of his disappearance.” It also considered that the State had violated the right to freedom of association. In addition, the Commission indicated that the State had not investigated the facts with due diligence and that the time that has passed since the complaint was filed “constitutes an excessive time that the State had failed to justify.” Furthermore, it indicated that “the State had violated the right to mental and moral integrity of the family of Mr. Gómez [Virula].”1 2. Procedure before the Commission. The procedure before the Commission was as follows: a) Petition. On July 17, 1995, Antonio Gómez Areano, Paula Virula Dionicio, the Guatemala Labor Education Project and the Unión Sindical de Trabajadores de Guatemala [the Guatemalan Workers’ Labor Union] lodged the initial petition on behalf of the alleged victims. b) Report on Admissibility and Merits. On March 21, 2017, the Commission adopted Report on Admissibility and Merits No. 33/172 in which it reached a series of conclusions3 and made several recommendations to the State. 3. Notification to the State. The Report on Admissibility and Merits was notified to the State on May 17, 2017, granting it two months to report on compliance with the recommendations. The Guatemalan State responded advising that it had been “in communication with the petitioners” and requested a first extension, which the Commission granted. However, once this extension expired, the State failed to present information on compliance with the recommendations. 4. Submission to the Court. On November 17, 2017, the Commission submitted this case to the Court “owing to the need to obtain justice and reparation in this specific case.”4 5. The Commission’s requests. Based on the foregoing, the Commission asked the Court to conclude and declare the international responsibility of the State of Guatemala for the violations described in its Report on Admissibility and Merits and to order the State, as measures of reparation, to comply with the recommendations made in that report. 1 The family members are: his father, Antonio Gómez Areano, and his mother, Paula Virula Dionicio. On July 31, 2003, the Commission advised the parties that, in application of Article 37(3) of its Rules of Procedure, it had decided to postpone the examination of admissibility until the discussion and decision on the merits. 2 The Commission concluded that the State was responsible for violating the rights to life, personal integrity, personal liberty, freedom of association, judicial guarantees and judicial protection established in Articles 4(1), 5(1), 7(1), 16, 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Ale[xander] Yovany Gómez Virula, and the rights to personal integrity, judicial guarantees and judicial protection, established in Articles 5(1), 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Antonio Gómez and Paula Virula. 3 The Commission appointed Commissioner Luis Ernesto Vargas Silva and Executive Secretary Paulo Abrão, as its delegates, and Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, Deputy Executive Secretary, together with Silvia Serrano Guzmán, Selene Soto Rodríguez and Erick Acuña Pereda, lawyers of the Commission’s Executive Secretariat, as legal advisers. 4 3