2 Commission requested the Court to declare that the State had violated the rights enshrined in Articles 3 (Right to Juridical Personality), 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 8 (Right to Judicial Guarantees), and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the prejudice of Hugo Muñoz-Sánchez, Bertila Lozano-Torres, Dora Oyague-Fierro, Luis Enrique Ortiz-Perea, Armando Richard Amaro-Cóndor, Robert Edgar Teodoro-Espinoza, Heráclides Pablo-Meza, Felipe Flores-Chipana, Marcelino Rosales-Cárdenas, and Juan Gabriel MariñosFigueroa. Furthermore, the Commission requested the Court to declare that the State is responsible for violating Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), Article 8 (Right to Judicial Guarantees), and Article 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the prejudice of the alleged victims’ next of kin. The Commission further requested the Court to declare that the State has violated Articles 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) and 2 (Obligation to Adopt Domestic Measures) of the Convention, to the prejudice of the alleged victims. 2. The application is based on the alleged “violation of the human rights of Professor Hugo Muñoz-Sánchez and of students Bertila Lozano-Torres, Dora Oyague-Fierro, Luis Enrique Ortiz-Perea, Armando Richard Amaro-Cóndor, Robert Edgar Teodoro-Espinoza, Heráclides Pablo-Meza, Felipe Flores-Chipana, Marcelino Rosales-Cárdenas, and Juan Gabriel Mariños-Figueroa [...] as well as of the rights of their next of kin,” on the grounds of the alleged kidnapping of the alleged victims from the Universidad Nacional de Educación “Enrique Guzmán y Valle” (Enrique Guzmán y Valle National University), located in La Cantuta, Lima, in the predawn hours of July 18, 1992, an operation carried out by members of the Peruvian Army, “who [allegedly] kidnapped the [alleged] victims, some of whom disappeared and were allegedly summarily executed;” as well as on the alleged impunity regarding those events as a result of the failure of the State to conduct an effective investigation into the facts. The Commission alleges that “this case shows the abuses committed by the Military, as well as the systematic practice of committing violations of human rights, among them, forced disappearances and extra-legal executions, by State agents on instructions from military and police higher officers, as the Inter-American Commission and the Comisión de la Verdad y la Reconciliación del Perú (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Perú) have stated since the early '90s.” 3. Furthermore, the Commission submitted to the consideration of the Court the matter of the alleged damage caused by the State to the alleged victims’ next of kin and, pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Convention, requested the Court to order the State to adopt the reparation measures requested in the application. Lastly, the Commission requested the Court to order the State to pay the costs and expenses arising from the domestic legal proceedings and from the proceedings before the Inter-American System of Human Rights. II COMPETENCE 4. The Court has jurisdiction to hear the instant case pursuant to Articles 62(3) and 63(1) of the American Convention, as Perú has been a State Party to the Convention since July 28, 1978 and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. III PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION