-4- c. Joinder of cases. On April 8, 2008, the Commission decided to join Cases N° 12.522 (Lucía Morales Compagnon et al.) and N° 12.523 (Alina María Barraza et al.) to Case N° 12.521 (María Laura Órdenes Guerra et al.), pursuant to Article 29(1)(d) of its Rules of Procedure in force at that time, on the grounds that they concerned similar facts. On April 30, 2009, the Commission informed the parties of its decision to join Case N° 12.520 (Mario Melo Prádenas et al.) to Case No. 12.521, in the same terms. d. Report on the Merits. On November 30, 2016, the Commission approved Merits Report No. 52/16, pursuant to Article 50 of the American Convention (hereinafter “Merits Report” or “the Report”), in which it reached a series of conclusions and made several recommendations to the State.6 e. Notification the State. The Commission notified the Merits Report to the State on February 17, 2017, granting it two months to report on its compliance with the recommendations. The Commission noted that, subsequently, the State had indicated that the period granted was insufficient for these purposes; that there was already a unified case law criterion on the inapplicability of the statute of limitations in the context of civil actions for reparations for crimes against humanity and that, therefore, an effective domestic remedy exists. The State did not request an extension for the suspension of the time limit provided for in Article 51 of the Convention. 3. Submission of the case before the Court. On May 17, 2017, the Commission submitted to the Court all the facts and human rights violations described in Merits Report 52/16, in view of the “need to obtain justice for the [alleged] victims” and because it considered that the State had not indicated how the victims whose claims were previously dismissed could be redressed.7 4. Requests of the Inter-American Commission. Based on the foregoing, the Commission asked this Court to find and declare the State responsible for the violation of the rights established in its Merits Report and to order, as measures of reparation, the implementation of the recommendations contained therein. II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 5. Notification of the case to the State and to the representative of the alleged victims. The submission of the case by the Commission was notified to the State and to the representative of the alleged victims8 (hereinafter “the representative”) on September 4 and 6, 2017, respectively. The Commission concluded that the State of Chile is responsible for the violation of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in connection with the general obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, to the detriment of the victims in the present case. The Commission recommended that the State: “1. Make reparation to the victims for the violations declared in [its] report. As part of that reparation, the State must adopt the measures necessary to provide an effective judicial remedy so that the victims can file their claims and obtain a decision with respect to reparations. Compliance with this recommendation is independent of the administrative reparations program. 2. Adopt measures of non-repetition, in particular, legislative, administrative and other measures designed to align Chilean legislation and judicial practices with the standards described in this report regarding the prohibition of applying the statute of limitations to civil actions for reparation in cases such as this.” Cf. IACHR, Report No. 52/16 (Merits), María Órdenes Guerra et al., Chile, OAS/Ser.L/V/II.159, Doc. 61, November 30, 2016. Available at: http://www.oas.org/es/IACHR/decisiones/Court/2017/12521FondoEs.pdf 6 The Commission appointed the then Commissioner Paulo Vannuchi and Executive Secretary Paulo Abrão as its delegates, as well as Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, then Assistant Executive Secretary, and Silvia Serrano Guzmán, lawyer of the Executive Secretariat, as legal advisers. 7 On June 15, 2017, following the instructions of the President of the Court, the Secretariat contacted Mr. Nelson Caucoto Pereira, indicated as the petitioner by the Commission, and asked him to confirm his representation of the alleged victims and, if applicable, to provide a power of attorney or document certifying such accreditation and a clear expression of their willingness to be represented by him. After requests for additional deadlines and extensions, between July 17 and August 8, 2017, Mr. Caucoto reported on his communications with the alleged victims and forwarded several powers of attorney granted by them. Regarding the representation of the alleged victims, when the case was notified, it was indicated that it had been decided to notify Mr. Caucoto, despite the fact that some powers of attorney had not yet been received, on the understanding that the representative acted as petitioner on behalf of or in favor of all the alleged victims in the proceedings before the 8