I. INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND THE CAUSE OF ACTION 1. The case submitted to the Court. – On May 1, 2021, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) submitted to the Court the case of “Jorge Marcial Tzompaxtle Tecpile et al. with respect to the United Mexican States.” The Commission pointed out that the case concerned the alleged international responsibility of the United Mexican States (hereinafter “Mexico” or “the State”) for the alleged unlawful and arbitrary detention on January 12, 2006 of Jorge Marcial Tzompaxtle Tecpile, Gerardo Tzompaxtle Tecpile and Gustavo Robles López by agents of the Federal Police when the three alleged victims were on the side of the road between the city of Veracruz and Mexico City. The Commission indicated that they were detained and searched by the agents without a judicial order and without being caught en flagrante. The Commission considered that the detention was unlawful and arbitrary. It added that the subsequent search of the vehicle was an infringement of the right to privacy and that the alleged victims had not been informed of the grounds for their detention nor were they taken promptly before a judicial authority. It also claimed that the application of the institution of arraigo [an investigative or pre-trial detention] was a punitive, and not a precautionary, measure that also affected their right to the presumption of innocence. In addition, it claimed that the arraigo (infra paras. 36 to 41) contravened the Convention and it considered that the application of preventive detention subsequent to the arraigo was arbitrary. Based on these considerations, the Commission concluded that the State was responsible for violating Articles 5(1) (right to personal integrity); 7(1), 7(2), 7(3), 7(4), 7(5) and 7(6) (right to personal liberty); 8(1), 8(2), 8(2)(b), 8(2)(d) and 8(2)(e) (right to a fair trial); 11(2) (right to privacy) and 25(1) (right to judicial protection) of the American Convention, read in conjunction with the obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, to the detriment of Jorge Marcial Tzompaxtle Tecpile, Gerardo Tzompaxtle Tecpile and Gustavo Robles López. 2. Proceedings before the Commission. a. Petition. – On February 22, 2007, the Commission received the initial petition, which was presented by the Solidarity Network for the Decade Against Impunity. b. Reports on Admissibility and the Merits. – On October 27, 2015 and December 7, 2018, respectively, the Commission adopted its Report on Admissibility No. 67/15, in which it concluded that the petition was admissible, and its Report on the Merits No. 158/18 (hereinafter also “the Merits Report”), in which it arrived at certain conclusions and in which it formulated recommendations to the State. c. Notification to the State. – The Commission notified the Merits Report to the State by communication of January 31, 2019 and placed itself at the disposal of the parties to reach a friendly settlement, granting the period in its norms to present their observations. After the expiration of that period, the Commission granted nine extensions to provide the State with additional time to comply with the recommendations and to advance in the implementation of the measures adopted to repair the consequences of the human rights violations established in the Report on the Merits. d. Friendly settlement proceedings. – During those extensions, on February 20, 2020 the parties signed a Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter also “the Memorandum”) for an eventual Agreement of Compliance with the Merits Report. During the discussions, the State took specific steps to comply with some of the recommendations; in particular, those concerning financial compensation. However, the Commission considered that, despite the goodwill expressed by the State, various recommendations had not been complied with more than two years after notification of the Merits Report. 3. Submission to the Court. – On May 1, 2021, the Commission submitted the case to the Court with all the facts and human rights violations described in its Merits Report, indicating the recommendations that had not yet been complied with, the need to obtain justice for the victims and the goodwill expressed by the petitioner. 4