2 brought this case for the Court to determine whether Ecuador had violated Articles 3 (Right to Juridical Personality), 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection), all in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of the Convention, by virtue of the fact that Ms. Consuelo Benavides-Cevallos … was arrested and unlawfully and arbitrarily detained, tortured and murdered by agents of the State. She was held in secret, without a court order, court authorization or court supervision. The State agents involved and the government institutions with which they were associated undertook a systematic campaign to deny these crimes and any responsibility on the State’s part. Through efforts made by the Benavides family and the Multiparty Investigation Committee appointed by the National Congress, these crimes came to light three years after the fact, and the body of Consuelo Benavides was located and identified. Although both the crimes and the cover-up were revealed in this way, the intellectual and material authors responsible for them have not been brought to justice. Many of the details surrounding the fate of Consuelo Benavides have never been clarified, and the family has received neither an acknowledgment of the State’s responsibility nor any form of reparation for the damages she suffered. II COMPETENCE OF THE COURT 2. The Court is competent to hear the instant case. Ecuador has been a State Party to the American Convention since December 28, 1977, and accepted the Court’s binding jurisdiction on July 24, 1984. III PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION 3. In response to a petition filed on August 22, 1988, the Commission opened case No. 10.476 on October 24, 1989, the date on which the pertinent information was sent to Ecuador. 4. On February 21, 1990, the State presented its reply, wherein it informed the Commission that a military legal proceeding had been instituted on October 30, 1987, in the Military Criminal Court of the Third Naval District, to ascertain the individual responsibility for the facts denounced. The State indicated that it would forward that court’s ruling to the Commission as soon as it was obtained. 5. On September 17, 1994, the Commission held a hearing in which the petitioners and a representative of the State participated. 6. During the on-site visit the Commission conducted in Ecuador from November 7 through 11, 1994, it requested that the State supply information on various matters, one of which was the instant case. 7. The procedure to reach a friendly settlement in this case, which started on November 23, 1994, was unsuccessful.