6 described in the Merits Report “due to the need to obtain justice for the victims and their relatives.” 5. Requests of the Inter-American Commission. Based on the foregoing, the Commission asked the Court to conclude and declare the international responsibility of Colombia for the alleged violation of the rights previously indicated in the conclusions of the Merits Report. Additionally, the Commission asked the Court to order the State to provide certain measures of reparation, which will be detailed and analyzed in the corresponding chapter. II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 6. Notification to the State and the Representatives. The submission of the case was notified to the representatives of the alleged victims on August 18 and 19, 2016 and to the State on August 18, 2016, respectively. 7. Brief with pleadings, motions and evidence. On October 18, 2016, the Colombian Commission of Jurists and the Center for Justice and International Law presented their brief with pleadings, motions and evidence. (hereinafter also “brief of pleadings and motions”), pursuant to Articles 25 and 40 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. The representatives substantially agreed with the Commission's arguments and asked the Court to declare the international responsibility of the State for the violation of the same Articles alleged by the Commission. Additionally, they alleged the violation of the right to privacy enshrined in Article 11(2) of the American Convention, to the detriment of the members of the Omeara Miraval and Álvarez Sánchez families. They also alleged the violation of the rights to life, humane treatment, freedom of thought and expression, freedom of association, and political rights, enshrined in Articles 4, 5, 13(1), 16, and 23 of the American Convention, to the detriment of José Erminso Sepúlveda Saravia (hereinafter also “José Erminso Sepúlveda” or “Mr. Sepúlveda Saravia”), as well as the rights to humane treatment, of the family, protection of privacy, rights of the child, movement and residence, a fair trial and judicial protection, enshrined in Articles 5, 17, 11(2), 19, 22, 8 and 25, to the detriment of their families. Finally, the representatives requested various measures of reparation and reimbursement of costs and expenses. 8. Answering Brief. On February 9, 2017, the State submitted to the Court its brief filing preliminary objections and answering the Commission's submission of the case and its observations on the pleadings and motions brief (hereinafter "answering brief”)7. In addition, in said brief the State presented a partial acknowledgment of international responsibility for the alleged violations. 9. Observations on the preliminary objections and the partial acknowledgment of international responsibility. On April 17, 2017, the Commission and the representatives presented, respectively, their observations on the preliminary objections and referred to the scope of the acknowledgment of responsibility made by the State. 10. Public Hearing. On April 21, 2017, the President issued an order8 summoning the State, the representatives and the Inter-American Commission to a public hearing, regarding the preliminary objections and possible merits On August 31, 2016, the State appointed Mr. Roberto Molina Palacios as its agent. Subsequently, on May 5, 2017, the State reported that he had been replaced by Ángela María Ramírez and appointed Milena González Román and María del Pilar Gutiérrez Perilla as advisers, and Jonathan Duván Riveros as adviser. 8 Cf. Case of Omeara Carrascal et al. Order of the President of the Court, April 21, 2017. Available: 7 http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/omeara_21_04_17.pdf. On April 25, 2017, the State filed an appeal for reconsideration against said order. Said appeal was dismissed by Order of the Court of May 15, 2017 and the Court ratified the Order of the President of April 21, 2017. Available at: