I INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND CAUSE OF ACTION 1. The case submitted to the Court. – On December 13, 2011, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) lodged a brief (hereinafter “application”) submitting to the Court the case “Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez et al.” versus the Republic of Peru (hereinafter “the Peruvian State,” “the State” or “Peru”). According to the Commission’s filing, the case addresses: (a) the alleged extrajudicial execution of three members of the Túpac Amaru Revolutionary Movement (hereinafter “MRTA”) during Operation “Chavín de Huántar” that retook control of the residence of the Japanese ambassador in Peru. According to the Commission, the property had been in the hands of 14 members of the armed group since December 17, 1996, and 72 hostages had been rescued in 1997; (b) the three individuals in question had allegedly been in the custody of agents of the State, and at the time of their deaths, were allegedly posing no threat to their captors; (c) after the operation, the lifeless bodies of the 14 members of the MRTA had been sent to the Central Hospital of the Peruvian National Police, where they had not been properly autopsied; (d) apparently, hours later, the remains had been buried, 11 as John Doe, in various cemeteries around the city of Lima; and (e) the State of Peru had not conducted a diligent, effective investigation of the facts and had not attached responsibility to the perpetrators and masterminds of the case. 2. Proceedings before the Commission. – The following proceedings took place before the Commission: a) Petition. – On February 19, 2003, the Human Rights Association (APRODEH), together with Edgar Odón Cruz Acuña, brother of Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez, and Herma Luz Cueva Torres, mother of Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva, brought their opening petition before the Commission. On February 18, 2005, the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL) was recognized as co-petitioner. b) Admissibility Report. – On February 27, 2004, the Commission approved Admissibility Report No. 13/04.1 c) Report on the Merits. – On March 31, 2011, the Commission issued Report on the Merits No. 66/11 under the terms of Article 50 of the Convention (hereinafter “Merits Report” or “Report 66/11”), drawing a set of conclusions and providing the State with several recommendations. a. Conclusions. – The Commission concluded that the State was responsible for violating: i. the right to life as enshrined in Article 4(1) of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, in injury of Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez, Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva and Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza; ii. the right to judicial guarantees and the right to judicial protection, enshrined in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in injury of the next of kin of the victims who had allegedly been executed; iii. Article 2 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 8 and 25 thereof, and In the report, the Commission declared admissible the petition concerning alleged violations of the right to life, the right to judicial guarantees and right to judicial protection, as established in Articles 4, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1), in injury of Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez, Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva and “David” Peceros Pedraza (Commission file, volume III, folios 1612 to 1627). The Commission, in Admissibility Report 13/04, used the name “David” for Peceros Pedraza, but his correct name is “Víctor Salomón.” 1