11 39. On February 17, 2003, and in conformity with Article 35(1)(d) and 35(1)(e) of the Rules of Procedure, the application was transmitted to Ms. Viviana Krsticevic, Mr. Juan Carlos Gutiérrez-Contreras and Ms. Alejandra Nuño, of CEJIL, and to Ms. Nahyeli Ortiz of ACAT, in their capacity as representatives of the alleged victim and his next of kin 2 (hearinafter the “representatives of the alleged victim and his next of kin” or the “representatives”), and they were informed that, pursuant to Article 35(4) of the Rules of Procedure 3 , they were allowed a term of thirty days to submit the brief containing pleadings, motions and evidence (hereinafter “brief of pleadings and motions”). 40. On March 31, 2003, after two extensions granted, the representatives of the alleged victim and his next of kin submitted their brief of pleadings and motions together with its appendices. In said brief they expressed that they agreed with what had been requested by the Commission in the application and requested, in addition, that the Inter-American Court conclude that the State violated Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) of the American Convention to the detriment of the next of kin of the alleged victim, and that the State also violated Article 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) of the same instrument. 41. On May 05, 2003, after two extensions granted, the State submitted its brief of preliminary objections, the response to the application, and observations to the brief on pleadings and motions. The appendices to said brief were received at the Secretariat on May 14, 2003. The preliminary objections entered are: 1) lack of jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court “to take knowledge of the events and actions that occurred prior to December 16, 1998, in case No. 12.228”; and 2) non observance, on the part of the Inter-American Commission, of “the basic rules for the processing of individual petitions provided for in the American Convention and in the applicable rules of procedure;” “lack of objectiveness and neutrality of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights before the Court as to processing, admissibility, decision on the merits and submission of the petition,” and influence on the part of the Inter-American Commission against “the procedural balance, which resulted in a situation of defencelessness affecting the Mexican State during the processing of the complaint.” In turn, the State expressed that “in the event that the objections set forth were eventually declared either partially admissible, or not applicable […] it is requested that the […] Court finds and declare that no human rights provided for in the American Convention […] and in the Inter-American Convention [against] Torture were found to have been violated.” 42. The State named Mr. Juan José Gómez-Camacho, General Director for Human Rights of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as its Agent; Mr. Juan Manuel GómezRobledo, Legal Advisor of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Ms. María del Refugio González-Domínguez, General Coordinator for Legal Affairs of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as Alternate Agents; and Mr. Ricardo García-Cervantes, Ambassador of Mexico to Costa Rica; Mr. Jorge Ulises Carmona-Tinoco, External Legal Advisor of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Mr. José Ignacio Martín-del-Campo-Covarrubias, Director of Individual Human Rights Cases before International Organisations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Mr. Javier Raúl Ayala-Casillas, Justice, Seventh Penal 2 3 CEJIL and ACAT made changes to their representations in the process of the instant case. Rules of Procedure approved by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights at its XLIX Regular Period of Sessions through its Resolution of November 24, 2000, which entered into force on June 01, 2001. This article, among others, was modified by the Court during its LXI Regular Period of Sessions through its Resolution of November 25, 2003. Such modification entered into force on January 01, 2004.