iv. the right to personal integrity, enshrined in Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, in injury of the next of kin of the victims who had allegedly been executed. b. Recommendations. – The Commission recommendations to the State: therefore made a number of i. make adequate reparations for the human rights violations declared in [the] report in both their material and moral aspects[;] ii. conclude and conduct, respectively, an investigation in the ordinary jurisdiction of the facts concerning the human rights violations declared in [the] report in relation to the direct perpetrators and to conduct the investigations in an impartial and effective manner, and within a reasonable time period, for the purpose of completely clarifying the facts, identifying all of the masterminds and direct perpetrators and imposing the applicable punishments[;] iii. [t]ake all necessary administrative, disciplinary or criminal measures in response to the acts or omissions of State officials that contributed to the denial of justice and impunity associated with the facts of this case[, and] iv. [a]dopt the necessary measures to prevent a future recurrence of events such as these, in accordance with the duty of prevention and guarantee of the human rights enshrined in the American Convention. In particular, implement ongoing human rights programs in Armed Forces and National Police training schools, and carry out awareness-raising programs for active-duty military. c. Notification to the State. – The State was notified of Report on the Merits 66/11 on June 13, 2011. d) Reports on the Commission’s recommendations. – The State submitted information on August 12 and December 6, 2011, on implementing the Commission’s recommendations from Report 66/11. e) Submission to the Court. – The Commission submitted the case to the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court on December 13, 2011, forwarding its Report on the Merits 66/11 “because of the need to obtain justice for the [alleged] victims, given the State’s failure to comply with the recommendations.” The Commission designated its delegates to the Court: Commissioner José de Jesús Orozco and then Executive Secretary Santiago A. Canton, and designated Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, Assistant Executive Secretary and Karla I. Quintana Osuna as legal advisors. 3. Requests of the Inter-American Commission. – The Commission asked the Court therefore to hold the State internationally liable for the violations set out in the Report on the Merits (supra para. 2.c.a). The Commission also asked that the Court order the State to provide certain measures of reparation, as detailed and discussed in Chapter XII below. II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 4. Notification to the State and to the representatives. – The Court notified the representatives of the alleged victims on February 24, 2012, that the Commission had submitted the case,2 and notified the State on February 27, 2012. 5. Brief with pleadings, motions and evidence. – The representatives of the alleged victims (hereinafter “the representatives”) submitted their brief of pleadings, motions and evidence (hereinafter “pleadings and motions brief”) to the Court on April 24, 2012. The representatives The representatives of the alleged victims in this case are the Human Rights Association (APRODEH) and the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL). 2