-62) Strengthen its capacity to conduct timely and duly diligent investigations of actions in which members of the Armed Forces use lethal force, and 3) Take the necessary measures to prevent similar events from occurring in the future, in accordance with the duty of prevention and the obligation of guaranteeing the fundamental rights recognized in the American Convention; in particular, through the implementation of human rights programs in its Armed Forces training schools. d. Notification to the State. – The Merits Report was notified to the State on December 3, 2012, granting it two months to report on compliance with the recommendations. The State requested an extension of three months, which was granted. On May 20, 2013, the Commission requested that Peru present a progress report on compliance with the recommendations. On that same date, the State presented a report in which it considered, inter alia, that the recommendation to compensate the next of kin of the alleged victims in the Merits Report for the violation of judicial guarantees and judicial protection was “not viable.” e. Submission to the Court. – On June 3, 2013, the Commission submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court all of the facts and human rights violations described in its Merits Report. The Comission indicated that “before it decided on the merits, it had taken note of the final conviction by the courts that established the relevant responsibilities, as well as the payment of compensation, to the next of kin of […] Tarazona Arrieta and Pérez Chávez, and to Bejarano Laura” and thus considered that “the violation was remedied in part.” The Commission informed that APRODEH had acted as a petitioner during the proceedings and had provided contact information. 3. Requests of the Inter-American Commission. – The Commission requested that the Court declare the international responsibility of Peru for the violation of the rights enumerated in the conclusions of its Merits Report. In addition, the Commission asked that the Court order the State to take certain reparatory measures that will be detailed and analyzed in the relevant chapter. II PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT 4. Notification to the State and to the representatives. – The submission of the case by the Commission was notified to the State and to the representatives on August 1, 2013. 5. Brief with petitions, motions and evidence. – On October 6, 2013, the representatives presented their brief with petitions, motions and evidence 3 (hereinafter “brief with petitions and motions”), as established in Articles 25 and 40 of the Rules. 6. Answering brief. – On January 3, 2014, the State presented its brief on preliminary objections and its answer to the brief of submission and to the brief with petitions and motions (hereinafter “answer” or “answering brief”),4 as established in Article 41 of the Rules. 7. Brief on observations to the preliminary objections. – On February 11 and 13, 2014, the Commission and the representatives, respectively, presented their observations on the preliminary objections filed by the State. 8. Accession to the Victims’ Legal Aid Fund. – By Order of January 22, 2014, the President of the Court approved the request filed by the alleged victims, through their representatives, The representatives transmitted their brief with petitions and motions by electronic mail. By communication received on October 16, 2013, they sent the original brief and annexes to the Court. 3 The State transmitted its answering brief by electronic mail. On January 13, it sent the original brief and annexes to the Court. The State named Luis Alberto Juerta Guerrero, Specialized Public Prosecutor of Peru, as its Agent. 4