pending trial” of J. S. and E. R. was ordered.130 On June 30th, the appeal of “revocation and further appeal” filed by the defense was referred to the Public Ministry.131 D. Pecuniary reparations granted domestically by the State 103. Certain members of the families of Ms. Maidanik, Ms. Reyes, Ms. Raggio Odizzio, Mr. González González and Mr. Tassino Asteazu received financial compensation as reparations for harm suffered due to the above-mentioned events, the details of which will follow (infra paras. 272 and 273). VII MERITS 104. The instant case concerns the alleged State responsibility for the violations of human rights arising from the forced disappearances of Óscar Tassino Asteazú and Luis Eduardo González González and the lack of an adequate investigation to determine what occurred and, where appropriate, to punish those responsible, as well as to learn the whereabouts of both persons. It also concerns the allegation of the lack of an investigation into the violent deaths of Diana Maidanik, Silvia Reyes and Laura Raggio. Finally, the case involves the harm that the circumstances of the case inflicted on the next of kin of the alleged victims. 105. Before evaluating the arguments, it is important to note that the violations have not been denied by Uruguay, although the State did not expressly recognize its international responsibility. The State indicated the measures that it had adopted and claimed that “it has adapted its conduct and actions to the American Convention on Human Rights and to the standards derived from it.” The actions that Uruguay informed that it has taken and those that support its manifestations have been, where appropriate, considered as part of the facts of the case and, moreover, will be assessed in relation to the examination of the appropriateness of the measures of reparation (infra Chapter VIII). 106. The Court will examine the alleged violations in the following order: (a) the rights to juridical personality, to life, to personal integrity and to personal liberty with respect to the alleged forced disappearances of Mr. González González and Mr. Tassino Asteazu; (b) the rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection with respect to the alleged shortcomings in the investigations into the aforementioned events and with respect to the deaths of Ms. Maidanik, Ms. Reyes and Ms. Raggio, and (c) the right to personal integrity with respect to the next of kin of the five alleged victims. VII.1 RIGHT TO RECOGNITION OF JURIDICAL PERSONALITY, TO LIFE, TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY AND TO PERSONAL LIBERTY132 130 Cf. Proceedings 614/2021 (evidence file, fs. 7488 to 7523). 131 Report of July 2, 2021, sent to the Supreme Court. Articles 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the American Convention, respectively. This chapter will also examine State responsibility under Articles I(a) and XI of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance. The infringement of Article XI was not alleged. It will, however, be examined on the basis of the principle of iura novit curia, which permits the Court “to analyze the possible violation of provisions of the Convention that have not been alleged, in the understanding that the parties have been able to express their respective positions in relation to the facts that support this” (Case of the Indigenous Communities of the Lhaka Honhat Association (Our Land) v. 132 30