3 (Obligation to Respect Rights) and Article 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) thereof, to the detriment of the “next of kin” of Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández. Lastly, the Commission asked the Court to order the State to adopt specific measures of pecuniary and nonpecuniary reparation. 5. On May 7, 2008, Viviana Krsticevic, Executive Director of CEJIL, and Luis Diego Obando, Ramiro Barriga, Soraya Long and Gisela de León, all of CEJIL, together with Father Ismael Moreno, Director of ERIC, representatives of the alleged victims (hereinafter “the representatives”), presented their brief with pleas, motions and evidence (hereinafter the “pleas and motions brief”), pursuant to Article 23 of the Rules of Procedure. In this brief, they alleged that “Blanca Jeannette Kawas was a well-known Honduran defender of the environment who promoted the protection of her country’s natural resources, principally in Tela, an area located on the Atlantic coast of Honduras” and that, in this capacity, she was murdered on February 6, 1995. The representatives reiterated that the death of Mrs. Kawas-Fernández “was particularly symbolic, because she was the first person murdered in Honduras for defending natural resources and the environment. After her murder, and owing to the impunity that characterized it, a series of murders of other defenders of the environment in Honduras occurred.” 6. Consequently, the representatives asked that the Court declare the State responsible for the violation of Article 4 (Right to Life) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández, “based on the [alleged] participation of State agents in ordering, planning and executing her murder and on the lack of an effective investigation into her death”; of Articles 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández and of “her next of kin,” “for failing to conduct a serious and effective investigation in order to prosecute and punish those responsible for the violation of the right to life of Jeannette Kawas”; of Article 16 (Freedom of Association) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández, “because Mrs. Kawas was murdered because she exercised her right to freedom of association,” and of Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the “next of kin” of Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández, “owing to the suffering caused by her murder and the lack of an effective investigation.” 7. On July 3, 2008, the State presented its brief answering the application and with observations on the pleas and motions brief (hereinafter “answer to the application”), in which, on the one hand, “it partially acquiesced to [the Commission’s application and the pleas and motions brief] and accept[ed] its international responsibility” for the violation of Articles 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) and 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) thereof, “to the detriment of the next of kin of Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández”; and, on the other hand, it “denied the alleged violation” of Article 4 (Right to Life) of the Convention, “to the detriment of Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández”; of Article 16 (Freedom of Association) of the Convention, “to the detriment of Blanca Jeannette KawasFernández,” and of Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) of the Convention, “to the detriment of the next of kin of the [alleged] victim,” all in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of the Convention. 8. In addition, the State rejected “the Commission’s argument […] that [this] case reflects the situation of defenders of the environment and natural resources in Honduras, as well as the attacks against the said individuals and the obstacles to the investigation of the