4 deceased in the massacre. Additionally, the Commission requested that the Court order the State to adopt several non-pecuniary measures of reparation, and to pay the costs and expenses of the present case which have already or will originate before the Inter-American Court. 4. On November 12, 2008 the representatives, CEJIL, and the Association of Relatives of the Detained-Disappeared of Guatemala (hereinafter “FAMDEGUA”), submitted their written brief containing pleadings, motions, and evidence (hereinafter “brief of pleadings and motions”). In addition to the Commission’s statement, the representatives claimed, inter alia, that the State is responsible for the infringement of the rights recognized in: a) Articles 8 and 25 (Right to a Fair Trial and Right to Judicial Protection) of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) and 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) of that treaty, against the victims of the massacre9 and their next of kin, due to i) alleged unjustified delay in the investigation of the facts, and ii) alleged lack of impartiality of the court that resolved one of the appeals for legal protection; b) Articles 8 and 25 (Right to a Fair Trial and Right to Judicial Protection) of the Convention, in relation to non-compliance with Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of that treaty and Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture (hereinafter “IACPPT” or “InterAmerican Convention against Torture”), with regard to the victims of the massacre and their next of kin, and Article 7.b) of the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence Against Women (hereinafter “Convention of Belem Do Pará”), against the female victims, for alleged lack of a serious and thorough investigation of all of the facts and of those responsible for the massacre; c) Articles 8 and 25 (Right to a Fair Trial and Right to Judicial Protection) of the Convention, in relation to non-compliance with Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of this treaty, against the victims of the massacre and their next of kin, for: i) hindering the investigations, and ii) not executing the arrest warrants issued against some of the alleged participants in the facts, d) Articles 8, 25, and 13 (Right to a Fair Trial, Right to Judicial Protection, Freedom of Thought and Expression) of the Convention, in conformity with Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of that treaty, with regard to the next of kin, who as of today do not know the truth on what happened to their loved ones and the identity of those responsible; e) Article 4 (Right to Life) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of that treaty, against the victims of the massacre, regarding the alleged inadequate investigation of their execution; f) Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of that instrument, against the victims of the massacre, regarding the alleged lack of investigation of the acts of torture and cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment to which they were allegedly subjected to; g) Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of that instrument, against the next of kin of the victims of the massacre for the suffering caused due to the alleged impunity of the facts, and h) Article 19 (Rights of the Child) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of that treaty, against the two survivors of the Massacre, as well as the infringement of Articles 17 (Rights of the Family) and Rodrigo Mayen Ramírez; 150) Onivia García Castillo; 151) Saturnino Romero Ramírez; 152) Ana Margarita Rosales Rodas, and 153) Berta Alicia Cermeño Arana. 9 From that indicated by the representatives it is inferred that this refers to those individuals who passed away during the facts of the massacre.