ii. Recommendations-Consequently, recommendations to the State: the Commission made a number of 1. [m]ake comprehensive reparations for the human rights violations declared in the [Merits Report] both in their material and moral aspects [;] 2. [d]evelop and complete a full, thorough and impartial judicial investigation, in a timely manner, with the aim of establishing the circumstances surrounding [Mr. A.A.’s] death; conduct a thorough investigation of the logical lines of investigation in relation to the case; and identify all persons involved at the different stages of planning and execution, and apply the appropriate punishments [;] 3. [i]ssue the appropriate administrative, disciplinary or criminal measures with regard to the actions or omissions of the state officials who contributed to the denial of justice and impunity surrounding the events of the case [;] 4. [a]dopt measures of a legislative, institutional or judicial character aimed at reducing the exposure to risk facing human rights defenders who are in a vulnerable situation. In this regard, the State must: 4.1 [s]trengthen the institutional capacity to combat the pattern of impunity surrounding cases of threats and murders of human rights defenders, through the elaboration of investigation protocols which take into account the risks inherent to the work of human rights defenders, in order to allow for a comprehensive development of the investigation under this hypothesis[;] 4.2 [s]trengthen the mechanisms for the effective protection of individuals whose statements have a significant impact on the investigations and who are at risk as a result of their connection to with these [, and] 4.3 [d]evelop swift and adequate institutional response measures, which allow for effective protection of human rights defenders in situations of risk. d) Notification of the State –The Commission notified the Merits Report to the State on April 17, 2012, and granted it a period of two months to report on its compliance with the recommendations. The State of Guatemala submitted a report in this regard on June 20, 2012. e) Submission of the case to the Court. – On July 17, 2012, the Inter-American Commission submitted to the Court’s jurisdiction all the facts concerning the human rights violations described in its Merits Report No. 56/12. The Commission appointed Commissioner Dinah Shelton as its delegate before the Court. Likewise, it appointed Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, Assistant Executive Secretary, and Silvia Serrano Guzmán, Isabel Madariaga and Jorge Humberto Meza, attorneys of the Commission’s Executive Secretariat, as legal advisers. 3. Request of the Inter-American Commission. – Based on the foregoing, the Commission requested that the Court declare the State’s international responsibility for 2 the violations cited in its Merits Report (supra para. 2(c)). II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 4. Notification to the State and to the representatives – The submission of this case was notified to the State and to the representatives of the alleged victims on October 5, 2012, through a communication of the Secretariat. 5. Brief of pleadings, motions and evidence – On December 8, 2012, Claudia Virginia Samayoa Pineda and B.A. submitted their brief of pleadings, motions and evidence (hereinafter “pleadings and motions brief”) to the Court. They substantially agreed with the arguments presented by the Commission, but included as alleged victims certain individuals who were not named in the Merits Report (supra paras. 2 (c) and 2(e) and infra para. 49). Finally, the representatives requested that the Court order the State to 2 In the proceedings before the Commission, the petitioners presented arguments regarding the alleged violation of Articles 8 and 16 of the American Convention. However, in its Merits Report the Commission concluded that there were insufficient elements of fact or law to rule on a separate violation of those articles in this case. Those aspects were not included in the proceedings before the Court, since neither the Commission nor the representatives submitted arguments and the State denied its responsibility in this regard. 5