iii. iv. the right to participate in government (Article 23 of the Convention), in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Carlos Luna López. the right to humane treatment (Article 5(1) of the Convention), in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the family of Mr. Luna López, namely Mariana Lubina López, Rosa Margarita Valle Hernández, Carlos Antonio Luna Valle, Lubina Mariana Luna Valle, César Augusto Luna Valle, Allan Miguel Luna Valle, José Fredy Luna Valle and Roger Herminio Luna Valle. b. Recommendations. Consequently, the Commission made a series of recommendations to the State: i. ii. iii. iv. provide adequate reparation for the human rights violations declared in the Report on Merits in both material and moral aspects; conduct and complete an impartial and effective judicial investigation, in an expeditious manner, to establish the circumstances that resulted in the death of Mr. Luna López, identify all the persons involved in his death at the different decision-making and executive levels and impose the appropriate sanctions; order the corresponding administrative, disciplinary or legal measures in relation to the actions or omissions by state officials which contributed to a denial of justice and impunity in this case, and adopt legislative, institutional and legal measures in order to reduce the risks to which human rights defenders are exposed, when in situations of vulnerability. In this regard, the State should: 1. strengthen its institutional capacity to combat the pattern of impunity in cases of threats and deaths of human rights defenders, through the formulation of investigation protocols that take into account the risks inherent to human rights work, and in particular the right to a healthy environment, leading to the sanction of those responsible and to appropriate reparation for the victims. Furthermore, the State must ensure that when public officials are involved in investigations on human rights violations, such investigations are conducted efficiently and independently; 2. strengthen the mechanisms to effectively protect witnesses, victims and their families who are at risk as a result of their connection to the investigation, and 3. develop appropriate and timely measures for institutional response to ensure effective protection for human rights advocates in situations of risk. d) Notification to the State. On August 10, 2011, the Report on Merits was notified to the State, which was granted a period of two months to report on compliance with the recommendations. e) Extension. On October 7, 2011, the State requested an extension of the deadline for compliance with the recommendations made in Report No. 100/11, which was granted by the Commission. Nevertheless, on October 20, 2011, the State presented its report to the Commission on its compliance with the aforementioned recommendations. f) Submission to the Court. On November 10, 2011, the Commission submitted the case to the Court in consideration of “the need to obtain justice for the victims, given the State’s failure to comply with the recommendations. In this regard, the Commission point[ed] out that 13 years after the events, the Honduran State had still not conducted a diligent and effective investigation in the [facts], had not determined the responsibilities of the intellectual authors […], nor had it opened an investigation into the clear evidence regarding the involvement of state officials.” The Commission appointed Commissioner Felipe González and then Executive Secretary Santiago A. Canton as its delegates before the Court, and Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, Assistant Executive Secretary, Karla Quintana and Isabel Madariaga Cuneo, attorneys of the Executive Secretariat, as its legal advisors. 3. Requests from the Inter-American Commission. Based on the foregoing, the Commission asked the Court to declare the State’s international responsibility for the violations of: a) Article 4 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the 5