3 Legal Effects). Finally, the Commission requested that the Court order that the State adopt certain measures of reparation, both pecuniary and non-pecuniary. 4. On June 19, 2008 Messrs. Mario Solórzano Betancourt, Humberto Guerrero Rosales, and María Sirvent Bravo-Ahuja, of the Mexican Commission for the Defense and Promotion of Human Rights and Mrs. Tita Radilla Martínez and Mr. Julio Mata Montiel, of the Association of Relatives of Disappeared Detainees and Victims of Violations of Human Rights in Mexico, representatives of the alleged victims, filed their brief of pleadings, motions, and evidence (hereinafter “brief of pleadings and motions”), in the terms of Article 24 of the Rules of Procedure. In that brief they agreed with that argued by the Inter-American Commission in the application and they also argued the alleged violation of other rights enshrined in the American Convention and the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons (hereinafter, “the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance” or “CIDFP”). 5. The representatives requested that the Court declare the State responsible for the violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), and 7 (Right to Personal Liberty) of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of the same treaty and Articles II and XI of the CIDFP, in detriment of Mr. Rosendo Radilla. Likewise, they argued that the State is responsible for the violation of Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument, in detriment of the following next of kin of Mr. Radilla-Pacheco: Victoria Martínez Neri and Tita, Andrea, Romana, Evelina, Rosa, Ana, Agustina, María del Carmen, María del Pilar, Judith, Victoria, and Rosendo, all of them with the surnames Radilla Martínez, as well as of the “community” to which Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco belonged.” On the other hand, they requested that the State be declared responsible for the violation of Articles 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in relation with Article 1(1) of said treaty and Articles I, subparagraph b), and IX of the CIDFP, in detriment of Mr. Rosendo Radilla and “his next of kin”. Additionally, they requested that the Tribunal declare the violation of Article 13 (Freedom of Thought and Expression) in relation to Articles 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), 25 (Judicial Protection), and 1(1) (Obliation to Respect Rights), all of the American Convention, in consistence with Article I, subparagraphs a) and b), of the CIDFP, in relation with the “right to the truth” in detriment of “the next of kin” of Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco and the Mexican society as a whole. Finally, they requested that the Court declare that “[t]he State of Mexico is responsible for not adopting the legislative measures or that of any other nature necessary for the obtainment of justice and truth, thus violating Article 2 of the American Convention, in consistence with Article III of the [CIDFP],” and that “the reservation filed by the State of Mexico to Article IX of the [CIDFP] be declared null for going against [its] object and purpose.” 6. On September 21, 2008 the State filed a brief through which it presented four preliminary objections, it responded to the application and it made its observations to the brief of pleadings and motions (hereinafter “respondent’s plea”). Thus, the State requested that the Court declare admissible the following preliminary objections: i) lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis due to the date of deposit of its instrument of adherence to the American Convention; ii) lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis to apply the CIDFP, due to the deposit date of Mexico’s adherence instrument; iii) lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae to use the Charter of the Organization of American States as grounds to hear the case, and iv) lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis to hear the alleged violations to Article 4 (Right to Life) and 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) of the American Convention in detriment of Mr. RadillaPacheco. “Ad cautelam”, regarding the merits, the State partially acknowledged its international responsibility for the violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in detriment of Rosendo