2 Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) filed before the Court an application against the United States of Mexico (hereinafter “the State” or “Mexico”), which originated on the complaint filed on November 15, 2001 by the Mexican Commission for the Defense and Promotion of Human Rights and by the Association of Relatives of Disappeared Detainees and Victims of Violations of Human Rights in Mexico (hereinafter “the representatives”). On October 12, 2005 the Commission approved Report No. 65/05,2 through which it declared the petition admissible. Later, on July 27, 2007 the Commission approved Report on Merits No. 60/07,3 in the terms of Article 50 of the Convention, which included certain recommendations for the State. This report was notified to the State on August 15, 2007. On March 13, 2008, after having received the information provided by the parties after the adoption of the Report on Merits, and upon considering “that the State had not fully complied with its recommendations,” the Commission decided to file the present case to the jurisdiction of the Court. The Commission appointed Messrs. Florentín Meléndez, Commissioner, and Santiago A. Canton, Executive Secretary, as delegates and the attorneys Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, Deputy Executive Secretary, María Claudia Pulido, Marisol Blanchard, and Manuela Cuvi Rodríguez, specialists of the Executive Secretariat of the Commission, as legal advisors. 2. The facts of the present case refer to the alleged forced disappearance of Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco, which supposedly occurred since August 25, 1974, in the hands of members of the Army in the State of Guerrero, Mexico. According to the Inter-American Commission, the alleged violations derived from this fact “continue to exist up to this date, since the State of Mexico has not established the whereabouts of the [alleged] victim, nor have his remains been found.” According to that argued by the Commission, “more than 33 years after the occurrence of the facts, there is complete impunity since the State has not criminally punished those responsible, nor has it guaranteed the next of kin an adequate reparation.” 3. Based on the aforementioned, the Commission requested that the Court declare the international responsibility of the State for the alleged violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 3 (Right to Juridical Personality), 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), and 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same treaty in detriment of Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco. Likewise, it requested that the Court declare the international responsibility of the State for the alleged violation of Articles 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), and 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in detriment of the following next of kin of Mr. Radilla-Pacheco: Victoria Martínez Nerí (deceased), Tita, Andrea, Rosendo, Romana, Evelina, Rosa, Agustina, Ana María, Carmen, Pilar, Victoria, and Judith, all with the surnames Radilla Martínez. On the other hand, it requested that the Court declare the State’s failure to comply with Article 2 of the American Convention (Domestic 2 In Admissibility Report No. 65/05, the Commission decided to declare admissible petition No. 777/01 with regard to the alleged violation of Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, and 25, in consistence with Article 1(1), of the American Convention, as well as Articles I, III, IX, XI, and XIX of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons (dossier of appendixes to the application, appendix 2, folio 56). 3 In Report on Merits No. 60/07, the Commission concluded that the State was “[r]esponsible for the violation of Articles I and XVIII of the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, and for the violation o[f the] right[s] to life, to personal liberty, […] the right to humane treatment, to a fair trial, and to judicial protection, enshrined in Articles 2, 3, 4, 7, 5, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, all in connection with Article 1(1) of the same instrument.” Likewise, the Commission considered that it was not necessary to go on the record “[r]egarding the alleged violations to Articles I, II, III, IX, XI, and XIX of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons” (dossier of appendixes to the application, appendix 1, folio 44).