I INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE DISPUTE 1. On May 2, 2010, in keeping with Articles 51 and 61 of the Convention, the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) presented an application (hereinafter “application brief”) against the Dominican Republic (hereinafter “the State” or “the Dominican Republic”) in relation to case 11,324. The initial petition had been lodged before the Inter-American Commission on July 1, 1994, 3 by the Subregional Coordination Office for Central America, the Caribbean and Mexico of the World University Service. 4 On March 7, 1996, the Inter-American Commission approved Admissibility Report No. 4/96, which was published on March 3, 1998 as No. 16/98. 5 On November 10, 2009, 15 years and 4 months after the initial petition had been submitted, the Commission approved Report on Merits No. 111/09, under Article 50 of the American Convention. 6 This report was forwarded to the State on December 2, 2009, and the State was granted two months to report on the measures adopted to comply with its recommendations. On February 18, 2010, the State requested a two-month extension of the time frame accorded by the Commission, and this was granted; 7 subsequently, the State asked for a second extension, which was refused. 8 Owing to the lack of information, the Commission considered that the State had not adopted the recommendations made in the said report and decided to submit this case to the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court. The Inter-American Commission appointed Gonzalo Escobar Gil, Commissioner, Santiago A. Canton, Executive Secretary, and Catalina Botero, Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, as delegates, and Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, Deputy Executive Secretary, and Isabel Madariaga and Silvia Serrano, lawyers of the Executive Secretariat, as legal advisers. 3 The Inter-American Commission and the parties agree that the initial petition was presented on July 1, 1994. However, the copy of this document submitted to the Court does not show the date it was received by the Commission. 4 On July 5, 1996, the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL) and Human Rights Watch joined the case as co-petitioners. On July 24, 1996, the World University Service and Luz Altagracia Ramírez de González, as the wife of the alleged victim Narciso González and as a member of the civil organization “Truth Commission,” advised the Inter-American Commission that Human Rights Watch and CEJIL would represent them before the Commission. 5 According to the Inter-American Commission, on March 7, 1996, it declared the instant case admissible and assigned the case the number 11/324. On March 13, 1996, the Commission notified the said report to the parties and granted them 90 days to indicate their willingness to initiate a friendly settlement procedure and to take part in a public hearing. However, the Commission only decided to publish this report on March 3, 1998. Cf. Admissibility Report 4/96, Case 11,324 Narciso González v. Dominican Republic of March 7, 1996 (file of attachments to the application, attachment 3, folios 355 to 360), and Admissibility Report 16/98, Case 11,324 Narciso González v. Dominican Republic, of March 3, 2008 (file of attachments to the application, tome I, attachment 1, folios 2 to 6). 6 Report on Merits No. 111/09, Case 11,324, Narciso González Medina v. Dominican Republic, November 10, 2009 (file of attachments to the application, attachment 2, folios 8 to 63). 7 In a communication of January 22, 2010, received by the Inter-American Commission on February 18, 2010, the State indicated that it “expressly waived filing preliminary objections before the Inter-American Court with regard to observance of the time frame established in Article 51(1) of the Convention should the case be submitted to the said Court.” When granting the requested extension, the Commission’s Executive Secretariat informed the State, inter alia, that “[d]uring this time, the time frame established in Article 51(1) of the Convention for the submission of the case to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights was suspended and would expire on May 2, 2010.” 8 The Inter-American Commission referred to the refusal of this second request for an extension in its application brief, and the State did not specifically contest this fact. However, the case file does not contain a copy of this extension request. 4