3. Based on the above, the Commission asked the Court to declare the international responsibility of Colombia for the alleged violation of Articles 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 17 (Rights of the Family), 22(1) (Right to Freedom of Movement and Residence), 8(1) (Right to Judicial Guarantees) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Luis Gonzalo “Richard” Vélez Restrepo, his wife Aracelly Román Amariles, and their children Mateo and Juliana Vélez Román. The Commission asked the Court to declare that the State had violated Article 13 (Right to Freedom of Thought and Expression) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Luis Gonzalo “Richard” Vélez Restrepo. In addition, it asked the Court to declare the State’s responsibility for the violation of Article 19 (Rights of the Child) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this treaty, to the detriment of Mateo and Juliana Vélez Román. The Commission asked the Court to order the State to adopt specific measures of reparation. II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 4. The Inter-American Commission’s submission of the case was notified to the State and to Arturo Carrillo, representative of the presumed victims4 (hereinafter “the representative”), on April 6, 2011. 5. On June 8, 2011, the representative submitted to the Court his brief with pleadings, motions and evidence (hereinafter “the pleadings and motions brief”), under Article 40 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. Overall, the representative agreed with the facts described by the Commission and asked the Court to declare the State's international responsibility for the alleged violation of the same articles of the Convention indicated by the Inter-American Commission, adding that Colombia had also violated Articles 4(1) (Right to Life) and 11 (Right to Privacy), in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Vélez Restrepo. Consequently, he requested the Court to order different measures of reparation. 6. On October 4, 2011, Colombia presented it brief with preliminary objections, answering the brief submitting the case, and with observations on the pleadings and motions brief (hereinafter “the answering brief”). In this brief, the State filed a preliminary objection (infra para. 27) and made a partial acknowledgment of international responsibility (infra paras. 13 and 17). Also, in this brief, the State asserted that it was not responsible for “the events [and alleged violations] relating to the presumed threats, harassment and attempted kidnapping against Mr. […] Vélez Restrepo.” In addition, it referred to the reparations requested. The State appointed Luz Marina Gil Garcia and Juana Ines Acosta Lopez as its Agents.5 4 The presumed victims in this case appointed Arturo J. Carrillo, of the Legal Human Rights Clinic of the Law School of George Washington University as their representative. Mr. Carrillo informed the Court that professors Carlos J. Zelada and Eduardo Bertoni would act as “legal advisers” (file of appendices to the Merits Report, appendix 1, folio 1122). 5 In communications of July 29 and December 8, 2011, the State appointed Luz Marina Gil Garcia and Juana Inés Acosta Lopez as agents for the instant case. In communications of June 8, September 30 and December 8, 2011, Colombia accredited Hernán Jaime Ulloa Venegas, Javier Echeverri Lara and Jorge Alberto Giraldo Rivera as agents, but subsequently indicated that they would not act in that capacity. 5