4 the detriment of the minor Vargas-Areco, and Articles 8 (Right to Fair Trial) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of said treaty, to the detriment of the child’s relatives. Furthermore, the Commission requested that the Court order the State to adopt certain reparation measures as set forth in the application. 15. On April 22, 2005, the Commission delivered an “amended application”, whereby it requested the Court to declare that the State violated the rights protected under Articles 8 (Right to Fair Trial) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of said treaty, to the detriment of the relatives of the minor Gerardo Vargas-Areco. Moreover, it added that the “violations in relation to which the Commission was requesting judgment by the Court occurred after March 26, 1993, when Paraguay accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court.” Likewise, the Commission requested certain reparations. 16. On June 10, 2005, the Commission “indicate[d] that the claims regarding questions of law contained in the application […] filed with the […] Court on March 27, 2005, […] included [arguments regarding alleged] human rights violations occurred before March 26, 1993, when the distinguished State of Paraguay accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court.” Consequently, the Inter-American Commission stated that “its claim was no longer aimed at having the […] Court declare that the State of Paraguay was liable for violating […] the rights embodied in Articles 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 5 (Right to Personal Integrity), 4 (Right to Life) and 19 (Rights of the Child) of the American Convention.” Lastly, the Commission also indicated that, in order to “facilitate proceedings in the instant case, the Commission filed with the Court [an ‘amended application’ on April 22, 2005], which contained the aforementioned limitations.” 17. On July 4, 2005, the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”), after a preliminary examination of the application by the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”), served said application and its appendixes upon the representatives and the State. The State was also notified of the term to file an answer to the application and to appoint its agents for the instant case, and of its right to appoint an ad hoc Judge. 18. On July 22, 2005, the State appointed Federico Antúnez-Barrios as agent in the instant case. 19. On August 29, 2005, the representatives filed a brief of requests, arguments and evidence (hereinafter “brief of requests and arguments”), and attached documentary evidence and offered testimonies of witnesses and expert witnesses as evidence. In said brief, the representatives alleged that the State violated the rights set forth in Articles 8 (Right to Fair Trial), 25 (Right to Judicial Protection), 19 (Rights of the Child) and 5 (Right to Personal Integrity) of the Convention, and Articles 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture (hereinafter the “Convention against Torture”), all of them in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of the American Convention, to the detriment of the minor VargasAreco and his relatives. Lastly, the representatives requested that the Court order the State to adopt various pecuniary and non-pecuniary reparation measures and to pay the costs and expenses incurred upon proceedings before the Inter-American System for Human Rights Protection in the instant case.