2 admissible. On March 8, 2007, the Commission approved Report on merits No. 15/07, pursuant to Article 50 of the Convention, making various recommendations to the State. This report was notified to the State on April 16, 2007. After considering the information provided by the parties following the approval of the report on merits, and “since it considered that the State had not adopted its recommendations satisfactorily,” the Commission decided to submit this case to the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court. The Commission appointed Luz Patricia Mejía, Commissioner, and Santiago A. Canton, Executive Secretary, as its delegates, and the lawyers Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, Deputy Executive Secretary, Manuela Cuvi Rodríguez and Paulina Corominas as legal advisers. 2. The Inter-American Commission’s application relates to the alleged unlawful and arbitrary detention of Juan Carlos Bayarri on November 18, 1991, in the province of Buenos Aires, Argentina, his presumed torture, excessive preventive detention and subsequent denial of justice, in the context of the criminal proceedings against him for the alleged repeated perpetration of kidnapping for ransom. The Commission indicated that “Mr. Bayarri was deprived of his liberty for almost 13 years based on a confession obtained under torture. Despite the fact that the Federal National Criminal and Correctional Appeals Chamber of Argentina found it proved that he had been subjected to torture, the Argentine State has not provided an adequate judicial response to Mr. Bayarri in relation to the criminal responsibility of the authors and has not provided any reparation for the violations he suffered, even though 16 years have elapsed since the facts occurred.” 3. The Commission asked the Court to determine that the State had failed to comply with its international obligations by violating Articles 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in relation to the general obligation to respect human rights established in Article 1(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of Juan Carlos Bayarri. It also asked the Court to order the State to adopt specific measures of reparation in favor of the alleged victim and his next of kin. 4. On October 17, 2007, Carlos A.B. Pérez Galindo and Cristian Pablo Caputo, representatives of the alleged victim (hereinafter “the representatives”), presented their brief with pleadings, motions and evidence (hereinafter “pleadings and motions brief”), pursuant to Article 23 of the Rules of Procedure. In addition to reiterating the InterAmerican Commission’s allegations, the representatives stated, inter alia, that “the harm caused by maintaining [the alleged victim] unjustly deprived of his liberty for almost 13 years, even though he was totally innocent, produced, in addition to the damage caused or set in motion against him […], substantial grave additional consequences for the members of his family”: Juan José Bayarri (father), Zulema Catalina Burgos (mother), Claudia Patricia De Marco de Bayarri (wife), Analía Paola Bayarri (daughter), José Eduardo Bayarri (brother) and Osvaldo Oscar Bayarri (brother). Accordingly, they requested that the State be declared responsible for violating the rights established in Articles 5(1), 5(2), 7(2), 7(3), 7(5), 8 and 25 of the American Convention, all in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Juan Carlos Bayarri and, consequently, that it make reparation to the alleged victim and his next of kin for the damage caused. 5. On December 28, 2007, the State presented its brief with preliminary objection, answer to the application and observations on the pleadings and motions brief (hereinafter “answer to the application”). In this brief, Argentina filed a preliminary objection concerning the alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies. Should this preliminary objection be declared inadmissible, the State indicated that “it did not question the truth of the reported facts,” since they had received “adequate reparation in the domestic jurisdiction.” The State asked the Court to reject “the claim for reparations made by [the representatives] and,