d. e. […] Notification of the State. The State was notified of the Merits Report on April 20, 2011, and granted two months to provide information on compliance with the recommendations. On June 21, 2011, the State requested an extension to report on compliance with the recommendations. On July 8, 2011, the Commission granted a two-month extension, asking the State that it present reports on progress in this compliance on August 31 and September 8, 2011. The reports were presented and the Commission considered that their content did not reflect substantial progress in compliance with the recommendations. Submission to the Court. On September 20, 2011, the Commission considered that the State had not complied with the recommendations of the Merits Report and submitted the case to the Court. The Commission designated Commissioner José de Jesús Orozco Henríquez, and the Executive Secretary at the time, Santiago A. Canton, as its delegates before the Court, and Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, Assistant Executive Secretary, and Silvia Serrano Guzmán, María Claudia Pulido and Fanny Gómez Lugo, lawyers with the Executive Secretariat, as legal advisers. II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 5. Notification of the State and the representatives. The State and the representatives were notified of the submission of the case on November 10, 2011. 6. Brief with pleadings, motions and evidence. On January 10, 2012, Carla Ferstman, Lorna McGregor and Clara Sandoval, members of REDRESS, as representatives of the presumed victims (hereinafter “the representatives”), submitted to the Court their brief with pleadings, motions and evidence (hereinafter “pleadings and motions brief”), pursuant to Article 40 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. In addition to agreeing, in general and in keeping with their own assessment, with the violations alleged by the Commission, in particular, they alleged the violation of the rights established in Articles 8(1) (Right to a Fair Trial), 25(1) (Judicial Protection), 5(1) (Humane Treatment), from the procedural perspective, in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of the American Convention, owing to the absence of access to justice and adequate reparation, and due to inhuman treatment as a result of the inaction of the State and of the system of justice, and Article 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) of the Convention owing to the failure to adapt its domestic law to the Convention, as well as the violation of Articles 6, 8 and 9 of the InterAmerican Convention against Torture based on the lack of access to justice and of adequate reparation for the torture suffered by Mr. García Lucero. Consequently, they asked the Court to order various measures of reparation. 7. Answering brief. On April 5, 2012, Chile submitted to the Court its brief filing a preliminary objection, answering the brief submitting the case, and with observations on the pleadings and motions brief (hereinafter “the answering brief”). In this brief, the State contested the claims made by the Commission and the representatives, and denied its international responsibility for the alleged violations of the American Convention. In addition, it disputed most of the reparations requested by the Commission and the representatives one by one, and therefore asked the Court to reject them in their entirety. The preliminary objection filed by the State refers to the “the Court’s lack of temporal and material competence.” Regarding the material limitation, it indicated that the Court’s competence should only address the claims made by the Commission and the presumed victims. Regarding the temporal limitation, it argued that, in the instant case, this had been infringed. It indicated that “[t]he jurisdiction of the supervisory organs is accepted from the date of the deposit of the ratification instrument onwards, with the express exclusion of 6