3 Dignity]), and 19 (Rights of the Child) of the American Convention, in relation to the general obligation to respect and ensure human rights established in Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mrs. Rosendo Cantu. In addition, it indicated that Mexico is responsible for the violation of Article 5 (Right to Personal Integrity) of the Convention to the detriment of Yenys Bernardino Rosendo, daughter of Mrs. Rosendo Cantu. In addition, it noted that Mexico is responsible for the violation of Article 7 of the InterAmerican Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women (hereinafter also “the Convention of Belém do Pará”) and Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture (hereinafter “the Convention against Torture”), all to the detriment of Mrs. Rosendo Cantu. Based on the abovementioned, the Inter-American Commission asked the Court to order the State to make certain reparations. 4. On October 28, 2009, the Organización del Pueblo Indígena Tlapaneco/Me´phaa4 [Organization of Tlapaneco/Me’phaa Indigenous People] (hereinafter, “OPIM”), Centro de Derechos Humanos de la Montaña “Tlachinollan” A.C. [the Center for Human Rights of the Tlachinollan Mountain A.C. (Tlachinollan)], and the Center for Justice and International Law (hereinafter “CEJIL”, all of the above, hereinafter, “the representatives”) forwarded their brief of pleadings, motions, and evidence (hereinafter “brief of pleadings and motions”), in accordance with Article 24 of the Rules of Procedure. The representatives substantially agreed with the violations alleged by the Inter-American Commission, adding to its request that the Court declare a violation of Articles 5 (Right to Humane Treatment [Personal Integrity]), 11 (Right to Privacy [Honor and Dignity]), 8 (Judicial Guarantees), and 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, to the detriment of the next of kin of Mrs. Rosendo Cantu; Article 24 (Right to Equal Protection) in relation to the other rights argued, and Article 2 of the Convention (Domestic Legal Effects), in relation with Articles 8 and 25 of the same, 1, 6, and 8 of the Convention against Torture, and 7 of the Convention of Belem do Para, to the detriment of Mrs. Rosendo Cantu. Lastly, the representatives asked that the Court order the State to adopt various measures of reparation, such as certain costs and expenses. 5. On February 17, 2010, the State presented a brief in which it filed a preliminary objection, answered the application, and made observations on the pleadings and motions brief (hereinafter “answer to the application”). Mexico asked the Court to consider the preliminary objection founded and to declare its lack of jurisdiction to determine violations of the Convention of Belém do Pará. It also asked the Court to declare the inexistence of the violations of the rights established by the American Convention and the Convention against Torture alleged by the Commission and the representatives. The State named Mrs. Zadalinda González and Reynero as Agent in the present case. 6. On April 23, 2010, the Commission and the representatives presented their arguments to the preliminary objection filed by the State, in accordance with Article 38(4) of the Rules of Procedure. 4 The parties use the terms me’paa or me’phaa to refer to the community or the language of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú. The Court observes that there are distinct linguistic variants of Tlapaneco that in Spanish are written in distinct ways depending on the geographical location of the community in question. According to the Instituto Nacional de Lenguas Indígenas del Estado [National Institute of Indigenous Languages of the State], the variant which corresponds to Barranca Bejuco is “me’paa” (http://www.inali.gob.mx/clininali/html/v_tlapaneco.html#4). Nevertheless, the Court uses the two abovementioned forms in an indistinct manner, in conformity with that used by the parties throughout the case at hand.