4 I INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATION 1. On June 24, 2009 the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter the “Inter-American Commission” or the “Commission”) filed a claim against the United States of Mexico (hereinafter the “State”, the “Mexican State” or “Mexico”), pursuant to articles 51 and 61 of the Convention, in relation to case 12.449. The initial petition was submitted to the Commission on October 25, 2001 by Ubalda Cortés Salgado, Ventura López and the following organizations: Sierra Club, Greenpeace International, Centro de Derechos Humanos Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez – PRODH (Center for Human Rights Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez - PRODH) and Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL). On February 27, 2004 the Commission adopted Report 11/04 whereby the case was declared admitted.2 On October 30, 2008 the Commission approved Report on Merits 88/08, prepared according to article 50 of the Convention.3 After considering that Mexico had not adopted the recommendations included in such report, the Commission decided to submit this case to the Court’s jurisdiction. The Commission appointed the following delegates: Messrs. Florentín Meléndez, Commissioner, and Santiago A. Cantón, Executive Secretary of the Inter-American Commission, and the following legal advisors: Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, Assistant Executive Secretary, and Isabel Madariaga, Juan Pablo Albán Alencastro, and Marisol Blanchard, specialists at the Executive Secretariat. 2. The claim is related to the alleged responsibility by the State for subjecting Messrs. Teodoro Cabrera García and Rodolfo Montiel Flores (hereinafter Messrs. “Cabrera García” and “Montiel Flores” or “Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel”) “to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, while detained and under the custody of members of the Mexican army, for their non-appearance without delay before a judge or any other official authorized to carry out judicial functions in order to control the legality of their detention, and for the irregular procedures during the criminal proceedings against them.” Furthermore, the claim refers to the alleged lack of due diligence in the investigation and punishment of those responsible for the facts, the lack of adequate investigation into the alleged torture, and the use of military privileges to investigate and judge human rights violations. The detention of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel took place on May 2, 1999. 3. The Commission requested the Court to declare that the Mexican State is responsible for the violation of the rights under articles 5(1) and 5(2) (Humane Treatment), 7(5) (Personal Liberty), 8(1), 8(2)(g), 8(3) (Fair Trial) and 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention; for default in complying with the general 2 In the Report of Admissibility N° 11/04, the Commission declared the case admissible with respect to alleged violations of the rights recognized in “Articles 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, taken in connection with Article 1(1) of that international instrument, and Articles 1, 6, 8 and 10 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture" (record of annexes to the application, volume I, annex 2, folio 93). 3 In the Report on the Merits N° 88/08, the Commission concluded that the State has failed to comply with the obligations derived from articles 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment [Personal Integrity]), 8 and 25 (Right to a Fair Trial [Judicial Guarantees] and to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, as well as articles 1, 8 and 10 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, all this within the general obligation to respect rights (Article 1(1) of the American Convention). The Commission also concluded that the State violated the obligation contained in Article 6 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention, to the detriment of Teodoro Cabrera García and Rodolfo Montiel Flores. Furthermore, the Commission considered that the information submitted in the present case was not sufficient for a finding of violations of the rights contained in articles 13, 15, and 16 of the American Convention (record of annexes to the application, volume I, annex 1, folio 1).