made several recommendations to Mexico.5 This report was notified to Mexico on November 17, 2011, and it was granted a period of two months to report on the compliance with the recommendations. Upon submitting the case to the Court on March 17, 2013, the Commission explained that the State “had requested a number of extensions, which [were] granted […] in order to obtain information on the progress made in complying fully with the recommendations made in the Report on Merits,” with the exception of the last extension requested on March 11, 2013, which was denied.6 II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 3. Appointment of the Representatives’ Common Intervener. On April 29, 2013, following the instructions of the President of the Court, CEJIL, SLIEJ and AJDH, the representatives of the presumed victims, and in compliance with the provisions of Article 25(2) of the Rules of Procedure, were asked to appoint a Common Intervener for the representatives. On May 14, 2013, the representatives indicated CEJIL would act as Common Intervener in this proceeding.” 4. Information presented by the Commission subsequent to the submission of the case. On May 10, 2013 the Commission presented a brief stating that, after submitting the case to the Court, the State had informed it that the writ of amparo filed by the victims had been admitted, that their criminal conviction had been reversed, and that on April 18, 2013 Messrs. García Cruz and Sánchez Silvestre had been released (infra paras. 49 to 51 and 59 to 61). 5. Notification to the State and to the Common Intervener. The submission of the case to the Court by the Commission was notified to the State and to the Common Intervener by the Secretariat of the Court on June 18, 2013.7 6. Brief of pleadings, motions and evidence. On August 19, 2013 the representatives of the presumed victims presented their brief of pleadings, motions and evidence. The representatives substantially agreed with the Commission in asking the Court to declare the State’s international responsibility for the violation of the same rights alleged by the Commission to the detriment of Messrs. García Cruz and Sánchez Silvestre. 7. Friendly settlement agreement and the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility. On November 7 and 8, 2013, the State and the representatives, respectively, notified the Court that they had reached a friendly settlement agreement and requested, inter alia, that they be permitted to sign this agreement at the Court. Mexico also asked the Court to issue a Judgment and “close the case.” On November 18, 2013, the official signing of the “friendly settlement 5 The Commission recommended that the State: i) “conduct a complete, impartial and effective judicial investigation in an expeditious manner, for the purpose of investigating the violations of personal integrity and personal liberty committed against Messrs. García Cruz y Sánchez Silvestre;” ii) “[a]dopt legislative, administrative, or any other type of measures for the purpose of adapting Mexican legislation and practices to international standards related to torture;” iii) “[a]dopt the necessary measures to review the validity of the criminal proceedings followed to the detriment of Messrs. García Cruz and Sánchez Silvestre, in view of the rights of which they were deprived, especially the evidentiary value of the confessions made under torture;” iv) “make full reparations to Messrs. García Cruz and Sánchez Silvestre, including both moral and material aspects, for the violations of human rights established herein,” and v) “[a]dopt] measures to prevent the repetition of events similar to those related to this case.” 6 According to the case file of the proceeding before the Commission, Mexico submitted reports to this organization on January 19, June 14, September 17 and December 12, 2012 as well as on March 11, 2013. 7 The notification was delivered at CEJIL’s office on June 19, 2013. As to the notification to the State, the courier delivered the document at the Mexican notifications office on June 24, 2013) 4