7 (a) Article 4 of the Convention; (b) Article 5 of the Convention; (c) Article 19 of the Convention, and (d) Article 24 of the Convention and Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, all in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of María Isabel Veliz Franco. It also asked that the Court declare the violation of: (a) Article 5(1) of the Convention; (b) Article 8 of the Convention, and (c) Article 25 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 24 and 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of María Isabel’s mother, brothers and grandparents. Lastly, it asked the Court to order different measures of reparation. II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 6. Notification to the State and the representatives. The submission of the case was notified to the State and to the representatives of the presumed victims by a communication of July 3, 2012.3 7. Brief with motions, arguments and evidence. On September 4, 2012, CEJIL and REDNOVI submitted4 their brief with motions, arguments and evidence (hereinafter “motions and arguments brief”) to the Court, in accordance with Article 40 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. They stated that, basically, they endorsed the Commission’s presentation of the facts, and indicated that they would describe the context in which these facts occurred in greater detail. They added that the State had failed to comply with its obligation of prevention under Article 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), and alleged noncompliance with Article 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) of the Convention. They did not allege the violation of Article 24 (Equal Protection). In addition, they asked the Court to order different measures of reparation. Lastly, the mother and brothers of María Isabel requested access to the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund of the Court (hereinafter also “the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund” or “the Fund”). Subsequently, on March 8, 2013, the representatives advised the Court that only REDNOVI would act as the representative (hereinafter also “the representative”). 8. Answering brief. On December 18, 2012,5 the State presented its brief filing a preliminary objection, answering the submission of the case and with observations on the motions and arguments brief (hereinafter “answering brief”). In this brief, it filed “the preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies,” denied each of the alleged violations presented by the Commission and the representative, and asked the Court to rule that the State was not internationally responsible. Furthermore, the State made a “preliminary analysis of competence,” in which it indicated that “it did not recognize the competence of the Inter-American Court to examine the supposed violation of Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará.” It also raised a question concerning the determination of the “victims” in the Commission’s Merits Report in its “[l]egal analysis of the supposed violations that had been alleged.” Lastly, the State rejected the measures of reparation that had been requested. The State appointed Rodrigo Villagrán Sandoval as Agent,6 and Ema Estela Hernández Tuy de Iboy as Deputy Agent. 3 The Commission’s submission brief and annexes were forwarded to the parties by courier. The representatives received them on July 4, 2012, and the State received them on July 11, 2012. 4 On that date, CEJIL, represented by Viviana Krsticevic, Alejandra Nuño, Marcela Martino and Adeline Neau, and REDNOVI, represented by Giovana Lemus and Sonia Acabal, were the representatives of the presumed victims. 5 On October 2, 2012, the Court sent the State by courier the brief with motions, arguments and evidence, together with its annexes and a USB device and two compact discs with the documents presented by the representatives, granting the State two months, non-extendible, to present its answer. On October 17, 2012, the State advised the Court that the USB device had not been received. On October 18, 2012, the Court again sent the State a compact disc with the missing documentation contained on the USB, and granted the State a new time frame to present its answer calculated from the date of reception of this compact disc. 6 On March 15, 2013, the State advised that it had appointed Rodrigo Villagrán Sandoval as the State’s Agent, in substitution of María Elena de Jesús Rodríguez López.