I INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE DISPUTE 1. On February 24, 2011, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court, in accordance with Articles 51 and 61 of the Convention, the case of Palma Mendoza et al. against the Republic of Ecuador (hereinafter “the State” or “Ecuador”). The initial petition was presented to the Commission on September 24, 1997, by the Comisión Ecuménica de Derechos Humanos [Ecumenical Commission on Human Rights] (hereinafter “CEDHU”). On October 22, 2010, the Commission adopted Admissibility and Merits Report No. 119/10 (hereinafter “Admissibility and Merits Report”), in which it found the case admissible and, based on factual and legal findings, concluded that Ecuador: is responsible for the violation of the rights to personal integrity, judicial guarantees and protection, and life recognized in Articles 5, 8 and 25, in relation to Article 4 of the American Convention, all of them related to failure to comply with Articles 1(1) and 2 of the said instrument to the detriment of Lidia Bravo […], Luis Palma Bravo, Nelson Palma Mendoza, Rosalía Palma Bravo, Perfelita Mendoza Agua[ll]o, Carlos Palma, Víctor Palma and Pablo Palma Pico. In addition, it recommended that the State conduct an investigation into the alleged facts in order “to prosecute and punish all the masterminds and perpetrators of the human rights violations committed against Marco Bienvenido Palma Mendoza” (hereinafter also “Mr. Palma Mendoza” or “Mr. Palma”), and to adopt all appropriate measures to make reparation to Mr. Palma’s next of kin “for both the pecuniary and the non-pecuniary damage.” Since the State did not adopt the recommendations in a satisfactory manner, the Commission decided to submit this case to the jurisdiction of the Court. The Commission appointed Luz Patricia Mejía, a Commissioner at the time, and Santiago A. Canton, Executive Secretary at the time, as Delegates, and Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, Deputy Executive Secretary, together with Lily Ching and Nerea Aparicio, lawyers of the Executive Secretariat, as legal advisors. 2. According to the Commission, on May 16, 1997, at around 9.30 a.m., while he was in his car accompanied by his 11-year-old son, in the canton of Manta, province of Manabí, Mr. Palma Mendoza was “intercepted by a white pickup truck,” from which three armed men emerged, dressed in civilian clothing and wearing ski masks. Mr. Palma was put in this truck, which departed toward an unknown location, and was murdered “five days after his abduction.” Thus the facts alleged by the Commission indicate that the State is supposedly “responsible for not providing a real possibility of filing a simple and prompt remedy that could have obtained the judicial protection required in the case, [because] the applications for habeas corpus filed by Mr. Palma Mendoza’s next of kin were ineffective to determine his whereabouts.” According to the Commission, “the State authorities merely issued orders that did not achieve results or help to prevent the murder of Mr. Palma.” Furthermore, as regards the obligation to investigate and to punish, the Commission indicated that “it is necessary that not only the perpetrators [of the human rights violations] are punished, but also the masterminds and accessories after the facts.” In the instant case, “even though a guilty verdict was delivered against three people as perpetrators of the detention and death of Mr. Palma, deficiencies in the Ecuadorian State’s obligation to investigate are alleged, as well as in the reasonable time in which this was conducted, and the partial impunity that has resulted from the proceedings.” 3. The Commission asked the Court to establish the international responsibility of the State because it failed to comply with its international obligations by violating Articles 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) 3