American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument) to the detriment of Yolanda Santodomingo Albericci, Orlando Quijano, José Vicente Rubiano Galvis and Eduardo Matson Ospino. iii. The violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection (Articles 8(1), 25(1) and 1(1) of the American Convention) in relation to Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture (hereinafter “Inter-American Convention against Torture”) of Yolanda Santodomingo Albericci, Orlando Quijano, José Vicente Rubiano Galvis and Eduardo Matson Ospino. iv. The violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection (Articles 8(1), 25(1) and 1(1) of the American Convention) in relation to Article I(b) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Carlos Augusto Rodríguez Vera, Cristina del Pilar Guarín Cortés, David Suspes Celis, Bernardo Beltrán Hernández, Héctor Jaime Beltrán Fuentes, Gloria Stella Lizarazo Figueroa, Luz Mary Portela León, Norma Constanza Esguerra Forero, Lucy Amparo Oviedo Bonilla, Gloria Anzola de Lanao, Irma Franco Pineda, Ana Rosa Castiblanco Torres and their next of kin, and of the next of kin of Carlos Horacio Urán Rojas. v. The violation of the right to personal integrity recognized in Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of the next of kin of the victims of forced disappearance, execution and torture. b) Notification of the State. The Admissibility and Merits Report was notified to the State on November 9, 2011, which was granted two months to report on compliance with the recommendations. After an extension to this time frame had been granted, the State presented a report on the measures taken to comply with the recommendations on January 30, 2012. 3. Submission to the Court. On February 9, 2012, the Commission submitted this case to the Court “due to the need to obtain justice for the [presumed] victims, since the State had made no substantial progress in complying with the recommendations.” The Commission appointed Commissioner José de Jesús Orozco Henríquez and then Executive Secretary, Santiago A. Canton, as delegates, and Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, Deputy Executive Secretary, and Karla I. Quintana Osuna, Executive Secretariat specialist, as legal advisers. 4. Requests of the Inter-American Commission. Based on the foregoing, the InterAmerican Commission asked this Court to declare the international responsibility of Colombia for the violations indicated in its Merits Report and to order the State, as measures of reparation, to comply with the recommendations included in the report. II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 5. Notification of the State and the representatives. The submission of the case was notified to the State and to the representatives of the presumed victims on April 24 and 25, 2012, respectively. 6. Brief with motions, arguments and evidence. On June 25, 2012, the Colectivo de Abogados José Alvear Restrepo (CCAJAR), the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL), the lawyers Jorge Eliecer Molano Rodríguez and Germán Romero Sánchez, and the Comisión Intereclesial de Justicia y Paz, acting in representation of the presumed victims (hereinafter “the representatives”) presented the brief with motions, arguments and evidence (hereinafter “motions and arguments brief”), in accordance with Articles 25 and 40 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. 3 3 The representatives presented the 581 annexes to the motions and arguments brief, starting on the day following the expiry of the 21-day period for their presentation established in Article 28 of the Rules of Procedure. The State did not submit objections in this regard. During its ninety-ninth regular session, the Court admitted the annexes presented on the two days following the expiry of the time frame, considering that this constituted a minimal delay that did not affect the State’s right of defense, or legal certainty and procedural equality between the parties, taking into account the particular circumstances of the case, the number of annexes presented by the representatives, and the Court’s practice in this regard. The parties and the Commission were advised of this decision on June 11, 2013. 6