2. According to the Commission, the instant case relates to the alleged forced disappearance of the “university professor and opposition leader” Narciso González Medina, known as “Narcisazo” (infra para. 93), which started on May 26, 1994, “as a result of his criticism of the Army and the then President of the Republic, Joaquín Balaguer, as well as his participation in the public denunciation of electoral fraud in the context of the 1994 presidential election.” In addition, the application refers to the alleged absence “of serious, diligent and effective investigations to clarify the facts, identify those responsible, and impose the corresponding sanctions.” 3. Based on the above, the Commission asked the Court to declare the international responsibility of the Dominican Republic for the alleged violation of Articles 3 (Right to Juridical Personality), 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 13 (Freedom of Thought and Expression), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Narciso González Medina. In addition, the Commission asked the Court to declare the State responsible for the alleged violation of Articles 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 13 (Freedom of Thought and Expression), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of his wife, Luz Altagracia Ramírez, and of their children: Ernesto, Rhina Yocasta, Jennie Rossana and Amaury, 9 all González Ramírez. As a result of the foregoing, the Commission asked the Court to order the State to adopt specific measures of reparation, and pay the costs and expenses. 4. The application was notified to the State and to the representatives on July 19, 2010. 5. On September 19, 2010, the civil organization “Truth Commission” and the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL), representatives of the alleged victims in this case (hereinafter “the representatives”), submitted their brief with pleadings, motions and evidence (hereinafter “pleadings and motions brief”) to the Court, in accordance with Article 40 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. The representatives agreed substantially with the arguments of the Commission and asked the Court to declare the international responsibility of the State for the alleged violation of the articles of the American Convention indicated by the Inter-American Commission, and added that the State had also violated Articles 17 (Rights of the Family) to the detriment of Mr. González Medina’s wife and children, 19 (Rights of the Child) to the detriment of Amaury González Ramírez, and 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) of the Convention, as well as Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture (hereinafter “the Convention against Torture”). Consequently, they asked the Court to order various measures of reparation. In addition, at that time, the representatives requested, on behalf of the alleged victims, that they be allowed to take advantage of the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund of the Inter-American Court (hereinafter “the Legal Assistance Fund” or “the Fund”) “to cover some specific costs related to producing evidence during the processing of this case before the Court”; they detailed the said costs and, subsequently, presented probative elements regarding the alleged victims’ lack of financial resources to assume them. 9 The Commission identified Mr. González Medina’s younger son as “Amaury,” while the representatives identified him as “Amauris,” and he also appears on probative documents as “Amaurys.” The Court will refer to this presumed victim as “Amaury,” as his name appears in the extract from his birth certificate provided to the Court (file of attachments to the brief with pleadings, motions and evidence, attachment 31, folio 5166). Furthermore, the Commission and the parties referred to Mr. González Medina’s second daughter as “Jennie Rossana” and she also appears in some probative documents as “Jenny.” The Court will refer to this presumed victim as “Jennie Rosanna,” as she appears in her affidavit and in the summary of her birth certificate cited in the Investigating Court’s ruling of August 24, 2001 (infra paras. 65 and 119 and footnotes 99 and 105). 5