State against the Mayan people, who were characterized as the ‘internal enemy,’ in a context of discrimination and racism […].” 3. Based on the above, the Inter-American Commission asked the Court to declare the international responsibility of the State of Guatemala for the alleged violation of the rights recognized in the following articles of the American Convention: 3 (Right to Juridical Personality), 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 6 (Freedom from Slavery), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), 11 (Right to Privacy), 12 (Freedom of Conscience and Religion), 16 (Freedom of Association), 17 (Rights of the Family), 19 (Rights of the Child), 21 (Right to Property), 22 (Freedom of Movement and Residence), 24 (Right to Equal Protection) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection), in relation to the general obligation to respect and ensure human rights established in Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of the members of the Río Negro community. In addition, it asked the Court to declare that the State had failed to comply with the obligations established in Articles I of the Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons (hereinafter “Convention on Forced Disappearance”); 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture (hereinafter “Convention against Torture”), and 7(b) of the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women “Convention of Belem do Pará.” In addition, the Inter-American Commission asked the Court to order the State to provide specific measures of reparation. II PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COURT 4. The State and the representatives of the presumed victims were notified of the submission of the case by the Inter-American Commission on March 29, 2011. On June 6, 2011, ADIVIMA, representing the presumed victims, submitted its brief with pleadings, motions and evidence (hereinafter “pleadings and motions brief”), in the terms of Article 25 and 40 of the Rules of Procedure. In general, the representatives concurred with the violations alleged by the Inter-American Commission. Nevertheless, the representatives did not allege failure to comply with the obligations established in Articles I of the Convention on Forced Disappearance, and 1, 6 and 7 of the Convention against Torture. However, in addition to the Commission’s allegations, the representatives considered that the right recognized in Article 18 (Right to a Name) of the American Convention and Article 4 (Right to Life) of the Convention had been violated; the latter right in relation to the alleged conditions in which the surviving members of the Río Negro community who were relocated to the Pacux settlement are living. Lastly, they asked the Court to order the State to provide various measures of reparation. 5. On November 22, 2011, the State submitted a brief answering the submission of the case and with observations on the pleadings and motions brief (hereinafter “the answering brief”). In that brief, Guatemala contested the Court’s jurisdiction to examine the violations that took place before the State had recognized the Court’s contentious jurisdiction, because “they are not continuing in nature […].” Nevertheless, the State recognized its international responsibility for some of the violations alleged by the Commission and the representatives and accepted some of their claims for reparation. In addition, it submitted to the Court a list of victims who had presumably already received compensation under the National Reparations Program. The State appointed María Elena de Jesús Rodríguez López as its Agent and Enma Estela Hernández Tuy de Iboy as its Deputy Agent. 6