3. Submission to the Court. On December 13, 2019, the Commission3 submitted the full set of facts and human rights violations outlined in Merits Report 12/19 to the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court. This Court notes with concern that over fourteen years elapsed between the time the originating petition had been lodged with the Commission, and the time the case was submitted to the Court.4 4. Requests of the Commission. The Commission asked the Court on this basis to hold the State internationally liable for the violations set out in its Merits Report (supra para. 2(c) and note 2). The Commission also asked the Court to order the State to carry out the measures of reparation cited in its report. II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 5. Notification to the State and to the representatives. The State and the representatives of the alleged victims were notified on July 10, 2020,5 that the case had been submitted to the Court. 6. Brief with pleadings, motions and evidence. The representatives of the alleged victims submitted their brief of pleadings, motions and evidence (hereinafter “pleadings and motions brief) on September 10, 2020, under the terms of Articles 25 and 40 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. They asked that the State of Chile be held responsible for violating Articles 25 and 8 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with the obligations set forth in Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, for failing to execute the judgments handed down for the 848 alleged victims in the case. The representatives added in their application the violation of Article 26 of the American Convention, but they did not elucidate their reasoning for this petition. 7. Brief of the preliminary objection and reply.6 On December 7, 2020, the State provided the Court with its brief replying to the Commission’s submission of the case and commenting on the pleadings and motions brief (hereinafter “answering brief”). The State set forth a preliminary objection in its brief. It also denied the alleged violations and questioned whether the measures of reparation requested were appropriate. 8. Observations on the preliminary objection. The representatives and the Commission both submitted their observations on the preliminary objection on February 17, 2021. 3 The Commission delegated then-Commissioner Luis Ernesto Vargas Silva and then-Executive Secretary Paulo Abrão as its delegates before the Court. It also designated legal advisors, to wit: Marisol Blanchard Vera, Assistant Executive Secretary, Jorge Humberto Meza Flores and Paulina Etchgaray, staff attorneys with Commission’s Executive Secretariat. 4 This Court also emphasizes that, in the instant case, the alleged victims are all over the age of 60 and, as of June 30, 2021, 185 had passed away (infra para. 125). 5 The Court was informed on February 28, 2020, that the representatives of the alleged victims were Giampiero Fava Cohen and Alexandra Orrego Da Silva. Ciro Colombara López was named common intervener at the same time. 6 The State designated the following as lead agents: Juan Pablo Crisóstomo Merino, Francisco Javier Urbina Molfino and Constanza Alejandra Richards Yañez; it also designated Oliver Román López Serrano and Sebastián Andrés Lemp Donoso as alternate agents. Later, in the answering brief, it designated Milenko Bertrand-Galindo Arriagada as lead agent. The State also lodged a written request on February 2, 2021, to replace agent Juan Pablo Crisóstomo with Ambassador Jaime Chomali Garib. 5