I INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE DISPUTE 1. The case submitted to the Court. On August 22, 2018, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court the case of Azul Rojas Marín et al. v. the Republic of Peru (hereinafter “the State” or “Peru”). The Commission indicated that the case related ‘to the illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory deprivation of liberty of Azul Rojas Marín […] on February 25, 2008, supposedly for identification purposes.” The Commission also “considered that serious acts of physical and psychological violence had been proved” and that, owing to “the nature of this violence and the way in which it was inflicted, particular brutality was used based on the identification or perception of Azul Rojas Marín as a gay man at that time.” Lastly, the Commission “concluded that the facts of the case remain unpunished owing to various factors that include failure to comply with the obligation to conduct an investigation with due diligence from the very start of the investigation. […] The Commission considered that the State had violated the obligations to provide care and protection to a victim who reports sexual violence, with the aggravating factor of the prejudice against LGBTI people. The Commission also determined that the right to personal integrity of Azul Rojas Marín’s mother[, Juana Rosa Tanta Marín,] had been violated.” 2. Procedure before the Commission. The procedure before the Commission was as follows: a) Petition. On April 15, 2009, the National Human Rights Coordinator, the Centro de Promoción y Defensa de los Derechos Sexuales y Reproductivos (PROMSEX) and Redress Trust lodged the initial petition on behalf of the presumed victims. b) Admissibility Report. On November 6, 2014, the Commission adopted the Admissibility Report in which it concluded that the petition was admissible. c) Merits Report. On February 24, 2018, the Commission adopted Merits Report No. 24/18, in which it reached a series of conclusions 1 and made several recommendations to the State. 3. Notification to the State. The Merits Report was notified to the State on March 22, 2018, granting it two months to provide a report on compliance with the recommendations. The State “presented information on a series of measures taken to avoid the repetition of the violations that occurred in this case, as well as on the reopening of the criminal investigation.” However, “regarding the recommendation to provide full reparation to the victims, the Peruvian State indicated that this recommendation was related to the investigation into the facts in the domestic sphere […] and indicated that, in any case, this was the function of the competent entities.” The Commission indicated that five months after this report, “the Peruvian State ha[d] not contacted the victims and their representatives to make a specific proposal on full reparation.” The Commission concluded that the State was responsible for: the violation of the rights established in Articles 7(1), 7(2), 7(3), 11 and 24 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations established in Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Azul Rojas Marín; the violation of Articles 5(1), 5(2), 11(2) and 24 of the American Convention, and also non-compliance with Articles 1 and 6 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture (ICPPT) to the detriment of Azul Rojas Marín; the violation of the rights established in Articles 5(1), 8(1), 11, 24, and 25(1) of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, and also the violation of its duty to investigate acts of torture established in Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the ICPPT, all to the detriment of Azul Rojas Marín; also, the violation of the right to mental and moral integrity established in Article 5(1) of the American Convention to the detriment of Juana Rosa Tanta Marín, the mother of Azul Rojas Marín. 1 4