Varenca Montenegro Cottom, Alejandra García Montenegro and María Emilia García; Article 5 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Nineth Varenca Montenegro Cottom, Alejandra García Montenegro and María Emilia García; Articles 13(1) and 13(2) (Freedom of Thought and Expression) and 23 (Right to Participate in Government) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, to the detriment of Nineth Varenca Montenegro Cottom, Alejandra García Montenegro and María Emilia García; and Articles 13 and 16 (Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Association) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Edgar Fernando García and his next of kin. Consequently, the Commission asked the Court to order the State to adopt specific measures of reparation. II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 5. The submission of the case was notified to the State and to the representatives of the presumed victims 4 on April 1, 2011. On June 1, 2011, the Grupo de Apoyo Mutuo, as the representative of the presumed victims in this case (hereinafter “the representatives”) presented their brief with motions, arguments and evidence (hereinafter “the motions and arguments brief”) to the Court, pursuant to Articles 25 and 40 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. The representatives were in substantial agreement with the violations alleged by the Inter-American Commission, and asked the Court to declare the international responsibility of the State for the alleged violation of the same articles of the American Convention and of Article I of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance, indicated by the Commission. In addition, the representatives indicated that the State had also violated Article II of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance because it “ha[d] not complied with punishment of […] the masterminds, perpetrators, accomplices and accessories […],” as well as Articles 17 (Rights of the Family) and 19 (Rights of the Child) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Edgar Fernando García and his family members. 5 Furthermore, they specifically asked the Court to declare the violation of Article 2 of the American Convention owing to the lack of effective legal remedies that facilitate the search for persons who were forcibly disappeared. Consequently, they requested to Court to order diverse measures of reparation, as well as the payment of costs and expenses. 6. On July 26, 2011, the representatives submitted to the Court a request for provisional measures so that the State would protect the life and personal integrity of Luis Roberto Romero Rivera as a result of the alleged threats and harassment to which he had been subjected. They indicated that he had been working on the case of Edgar Fernando García, because he is the Director of the Special Investigations Unit of the Ombudsman’s Office responsible for the investigations into the forced disappearances that took place during the internal armed conflict in Guatemala. On August 3, 2011, the State presented its observations on the request, asking that it be declared inadmissible but, at the same time, 4 In the brief submitting the case (supra para. 1), the Inter-American Commission stated that “according to the information available to [the Commission], the organization representing the [presumed] victims in the proceedings before the Inter-American Court is the Grupo de Apoyo Mutual.” On May 3, 2011, the Grupo de Apoyo Mutual (GAM) confirmed that it represented the presumed victims in this case and presented the respective power of attorney. 5 In their motions and arguments brief, the representatives stated that the right to freedom of thought and expression and the rights of the child were established in Articles 12 and 18 of the American Convention, respectively. 5