3 detriment of Carmen Cornejo de Albán and of Bismarck Albán-Sánchez. Likewise, it requested the Court to order the State to adopt certain reparation measures. 5. On October 14, 2006 Mr. Farith Simon-Campaña and Mr. Alejandro PonceVillacís,4 of the Legal Clinics of the Law School of the San Francisco de Quito University (Clínicas Jurídicas del Colegio de Jurisprudencia de la Universidad San Francisco de Quito) in Ecuador, in their capacity as representatives of the alleged victims (hereinafter “the representatives”), filed their brief containing pleadings, motions and evidence (hereinafter “brief of pleadings and motions”). The representatives requested the Tribunal to declare that the State violated Articles 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Laura Albán; and Articles 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), 13 (Freedom of Thought and Expression), 17 (Rights of the Family) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the Convention, to the detriment of Carmen Cornejo de Albán and Bismarck Albán-Sánchez. The representatives alleged a violation of such Articles in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) and 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) of the American Convention. Lastly, they requested the Court to order the State to adopt certain reparation measures and to pay costs and expenses arising from the processing of the case in domestic legal proceedings and in proceedings before the organs the Inter-American System for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. 6. On December 15, 2006 the State5 filed its answer to the application and its observations to the brief of pleadings and motions (hereinafter “answer to the application”). It pointed out that it had not violated neither Article 4 (Right to Life), nor Articles 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection), all three of the American Convention, and “reaffirm[ed] its purpose of satisfying the right to truth of the alleged victims without acknowledging a violation of the rights protected under Articles 4, 13, and 17 of the American Convention”. Regarding Article 5 of the Convention, in its final written arguments, the State requested that the claim be dismissed. Lastly, it objected to the amount of money requested by the representatives as reparations, costs and expenses. II JURISDICTION 7. The Court has jurisdiction to hear the current case pursuant to Articles 62(3) and 63(1) of the Convention, as Ecuador has been a State Party to the Convention since December 28, 1977, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on July 24, 1984. 4 The victims, by means of a power of attorney, appointed Farith Simon-Campaña and Alejandro Ponce-Villacís, from the Legal Clinics of the Law School of the San Francisco de Quito University (Clínicas Jurídicas del Colegio de Jurisprudencia de la Universidad San Francisco de Quito), in Ecuador, as representatives before the Court. 5 The State appointed Erick Roberts, Assistant Director for Human Rights of the Office of the Attorney General (Subdirector de Derechos Humanos de la Procuraduría) as Agent and Salim Zaidán, an official of the Office of the Assistant Director for Human Rights of the Office of the Attorney General (Subdirección de Derechos Humanos de la Procuraduría) as Alternate Agent.