     The rights to personal integrity and to privacy established in Articles 5 and 11 of the American Convention, to the detriment of the women who were raped in the village of El Mozote; The right to property established in Article 21 of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of the executed victims who were stripped of their possessions, as well as of the survivors whose homes were destroyed or whose means of subsistence were seized or eliminated; The right to personal integrity set forth in Article 5 of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the survivors and next of kin of the executed victims; The right to freedom of movement and residence set forth in Article 22 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of those who were forcibly displaced, and The rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection established in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument; Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture; and Article 7 of the Inter-American Convention for the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women or “Convention of Belém do Pará,” to the detriment of the survivors and next of kin of the executed victims. 5. The Commission submitted to the Inter-American Court2 the State’s acts and omissions that occurred after June 6, 1995, the date on which El Salvador accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court. These include: the application of the Law of General Amnesty for the Consolidation of Peace; the failure to reopen the investigations; the absence of continued and sustained efforts to exhume as many mortal remains as possible; the lack of judicial follow-up on the exhumations performed and on the information obtained from them; the lack of response to the requests to re-open the investigations; the effects of the massacres and their impunity on the surviving next of kin; the failure to make reparation to them, and the situation of displacement of some presumed victims. The foregoing, without prejudice to the State of El Salvador accepting the Court’s competence to hear this case in full, under the provisions of Article 62(2) of the American Convention. Consequently, the Commission asked that the State be ordered to adopt certain measures of reparation. II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 6. The submission of the case by the Commission was notified to the representatives of the presumed victims3 (hereinafter “the representatives”) and the State on June 14 and 15, 2011, respectively. 7. On August 12, 2011, the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL) and the Oficina de Tutela Legal del Arzobispado de San Salvador (OTLA), in their capacity as representatives, 2 According to Article 35(3) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, “[t]he Commission shall indicate which facts contained in the report to which Article 50 of the Convention refers it is submitting to the consideration of the Court.” 3 In communications of May 23 and 30, 2011, the Oficina de Tutela Legal del Arzobispado and the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL) indicated that they “do indeed represent the [presumed] victims in this case,” and forwarded their powers of attorney in response to the request made in the note of the Secretariat of May 3, 2011, asking them to confirm whether they indeed represent the presumed victims in this case, in which case they should accredit this representation with powers of attorney or other documents revealing clear evidence of the intention of the presumed victims to be represented by members of the said organizations, as well as “updated lists” of presumed victims. Since the said organizations indicated “that, for some time, [they have been] continually updating the lists of the [presumed] displaced victims and the next of kin of the [presumed] murdered victims,” the President, therefore, asked the representatives to advise the Court in due course whether they will represent other individuals during these proceedings. Regarding the “updated lists” of presumed victims presented by the representatives, without these being requested, based on the provisions of Article 35(2) of the Rules of Procedure, they were advised that this information would be submitted to the Court for the pertinent effects. 5