2 was released on July 11, 1992 for lack of evidence on the charges for which he was detained. The second capture was allegedly carried out by members of the First Battalion of Territorial Forces at his home during the night of that same day, July 11. On July 22, 1992 the next of kin of the alleged victim heard that the body of Juan Humberto Sánchez had been found “in a deep pool of the ‘Río Negro,’ stuck between the stones and in a state of decay [,] […] with a rope around the neck that crossed his chest and tied his hands toward the back and there were signs of torture.” On the other hand, the Commission argued that on July 20, 1992, before the body of the alleged victim was found, a habeas corpus remedy had been filed before the Appelate Court of Comayagua for the “kidnapping and detention” of Juan Humberto Sánchez. This habeas corpus remedy was rejected on August 14, 1992. Furthermore, the Commission pointed out that to date no person has been tried or punished for the “kidnapping, torture, and execution” of Juan Humberto Sánchez, for which reason there continues to be a situation of impunity with respect to the case. In this regard, the Commission also stated that the criminal proceeding followed there has been marked by a “lack of seriousness and effectiveness,” that it has been insufficient and that from the start it has faced numerous obstacles, including intimidation and threats against witnesses and relatives of the alleged victim. 2. In view of the above, the Commission asked the Court to find that the following rights were breached to the detriment of Juan Humberto Sánchez: Articles 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 8 (Right to Fair Trial) and 25 (Judicial Protection), in combination with the obligation set forth in Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect and Ensure Rights) of the American Convention. The Commission also requested that the Court order the State to adopt a series of pecuniary and non-pecuniary measures of reparation (infra 154, 160, 171, 181 and 192). II COMPETENCE 3. Pursuant to the terms of Articles 62 and 63(1) of the American Convention, the Court is competent to hear the instant case, because Honduras has been a State Party to the Convention since September 8, 1977, and it accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on September 9, 1981. III PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION 4. Case No. 11.073 was opened by the Inter-American Commission on October 20, 1992 in view of a complaint filed by the Comisión para la Defensa de los