84 II BACKGROUND 2. The instant case was filed with the Court by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) in its August 30, 1996 application. On October 31, 1996, the State filed a preliminary objection that it subsequently withdrew.3 On November 25, 2000, the Court rendered its judgment on the merits of the case, unanimously ruling that it: 1. [found] that the State violated the right to personal liberty embodied in Article 7 of the American Convention on Human Rights, to the detriment of Efraín Bámaca Velázquez. … 2. [found] that the State violated the right to humane treatment embodied in Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights, to the detriment of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez, and also of Jennifer Harbury, José […] León Bámaca Velásquez, Egidia Gebia Bámaca Velásquez and Josefina Bámaca Velásquez. … 3. [found] that the State violated the right to life embodied in Article 4 of the American Convention on Human Rights, to the detriment of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez. … 4. [found] that the State did not violate the right to recognition of juridical personality embodied in Article 3 of the American Convention on Human Rights, to the detriment of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez. … 5. [found] that the State violated the right to fair trial and judicial protection embodied in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, to the detriment of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez, and also of Jennifer Harbury, José […] León Bámaca Hernández, Egidia Gebia Bámaca Velásquez and Josefina Bámaca Velásquez. … 6. [found] that the State did not comply with the general obligations of Articles 1(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights in connection with the violations of the substantive rights indicated in the previous decisions of [the aforementioned] Judgment. … 7. [found] that the State did not comply with the obligation to prevent and punish torture in the terms of Articles 1, 2, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. … 8. decide[d] that the State should order an investigation to determine the persons responsible for the human rights violations referred to in [the aforementioned] 3 In its April 16, 1997 Order, the Court stated that “the preliminary objection filed by the State has been withdrawn by the State [and the Court ordered that] the case proceedings on the merits should continue”. The Court also deemed, in its February 5, 1997 Order, “[t]hat in examining the briefs filed by Guatemala the Court cannot conclude that the facts stated in the application have been accepted and, therefore, it must continue to hear the matter”.