I INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE DISPUTE 1. On March 15, 2011 the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or the Commission), pursuant to Articles 51 and 61 of the American Convention, submitted to the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court the case of Sebastián Furlan and Family v. the Republic of Argentina (hereinafter “the State” or “Argentina”). The initial petition was filed before the Inter-American Commission on July 18, 2001 by Mr. Danilo Furlan in representation of his son Sebastián Claus Furlan (hereinafter “Sebastián Furlan” or the “alleged victim”). 2. On March 2, 2006 the Commission approved Report on Admissibility No. 17/06, and on October 21, 2010 it issued the Report on Merits No. 111/10, in accordance with Article 50 of the American Convention.3 Subsequently, considering that the State has not complied with the recommendations contained in the Report on Merits, the Inter-American Commission decided to submit the case to the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court. The Commission appointed Commissioner Luz Patricia Mejía and Executive Secretary Santiago A. Canton as its Delegates, and Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, Deputy Executive Secretary, Silvia Serrano Guzmán, Karla I. Quintana Osuna, Fanny Gómez Lugo and María Claudia Pulido, attorneys of the Executive Secretariat, as legal advisors. 3. According to the Commission, this application is related to the State’s alleged international responsibility for the “lack of timely response by the Argentinean judicial authorities, who incurred in an excessive delay in the resolution of a civil action against the State, whose response depended on the medical treatment of the [alleged] victim, as a child with disabilities.” The Commission requested that the Court declare the violation of Articles 8(1) (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25(1) (Right to Judicial Protection) in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of the American Convention to the detriment of Sebastián Furlan and Danilo Furlan. In addition, it requested that the Court declare the violation of Article 25(2.c) (Judicial Protection) in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of the Convention, to the detriment of Sebastián Furlan. Furthermore, it alleged the violation of Articles 5(1) (Right to Personal Integrity) and 19 (Rights of the Child) in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of the Convention to the detriment of Sebastián Furlan. Also, it requested that the Court declare the violation of Article 5(1) (Right to Personal Integrity), in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of the Convention to the detriment of Danilo Furlan, Susana Fernández, Claudio Erwin Furlan and Sabina Eva Furlan. Finally, pursuant to Article 35(1.g) of the Rules of Procedure, in its brief submitting the case, the Commission requested that the Court order the State to implement reparation measures. II PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COURT 4. On April 5, 2011, following the instructions of the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”), the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) informed Mr. Danilo Furlan, who acted as representative of Sebastián Furlan and his family, that Article 37 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure establishes the mechanism of the Inter-American Defender, whereby “[i]n cases where alleged victims are acting without duly accredited legal 3 Report on Merits No. 111/10, Case 12.539, Sebastián Claus Furlan and Family of October 21, 2010 (File on Merits, volume I, pages 5 to 48). 4