3 invoked by the Commission, the representatives asked that the Court declare the State responsible for violating the rights embodied in Articles 7 (Right to Personal Liberty) and 11 (Right to Privacy [Dignity and Honor]) of the Convention, all in relation to the general obligations arising from Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, as well as Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, in connection with Articles 8 and 9 thereof. Furthermore, they asked the Court to declare that the State had violated the right embodied in Article 5 of the American Convention to the detriment of the three alleged victims identified by the Commission. 5. On May 26, 2008, the State presented its brief in answer to the application and with observations on the pleadings and motions brief (hereinafter “answer to the application”). This brief questioned the Court’s jurisdiction to examine the alleged violation of the Convention of Belém do Pará. In addition, it contested the expansion of the number of victims proposed by the representatives, and partially acknowledged its international responsibility. The State appointed Juan Manuel Gómez-Robledo Verduzco as its agent, and Patricia González Rodríguez, Joel Antonio Hernández García, María Carmen Oñate Muñoz, Alejandro Negrín Muñoz and Armando Vivanco Castellanos as its Deputy Agents. 6. On July 16, 2008, having examined the answer to the application, the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”) informed the State that the allegations concerning the Convention of Belém do Pará constituted a preliminary objection. Consequently, in accordance with Article 37(4) of the Rules of Procedure, she granted the Commission and the representatives 30 days to submit written arguments. The arguments were presented on August 20, and September 6, 2008, respectively. II PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COURT 7. On August 21, 2008, the representatives expressed their intention of commenting on “relevant information” contained in the attachments to the answer to the application and providing information on “supervening facts.” On August 26, 2008, the President refused the representatives’ request to submit their comments on the attachments to the answer to the application at this procedural stage, because they had failed to justify why Article 39 of the Rules of Procedure should be applied. Nevertheless, the President advised the representatives that they could submit any allegations they deemed pertinent during the oral proceedings or in their final written arguments. 8. On September 6, 2008, the representatives submitted a brief in which, inter alia, they commented on “the observations made by the Mexican State in its answer to the application.” On September 9, 2008, the President considered that this part of the brief would not be taken into account, because the Rules of Procedure made no provision for its presentation and it had not been requested. Nevertheless, the President informed the representatives that they could present any allegations they deemed pertinent, during the oral proceedings or in their final written arguments. 9. In an order of January 19, 2009, the Court denied the request to expand the number of alleged victims and determined that the alleged victims in the instant case would be Esmeralda Herrera Monreal and her next of kin: Irma Monreal Jaime (mother), Benigno Herrera Monreal (brother), Adrián Herrera Monreal (brother), Juan Antonio Herrera Monreal (brother), Cecilia Herrera Monreal (sister), Zulema Montijo Monreal (sister), Erick Montijo Monreal (brother), Juana Ballín Castro (sister-in-law); Claudia Ivette González and her next of kin: Irma Josefina González Rodríguez

Select target paragraph3