I INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND CAUSE OF ACTION 1. The case submitted to the Court. On December 4, 2019, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court the case of the Julien-Grisonas Family versus the Argentine Republic (hereinafter also “the State” or “Argentina”). According to the Commission, the case involves the State’s alleged international responsibility for the forced disappearances of Mario Roger Julien Cáceres and Victoria Lucía Grisonas Andrijauskaite, “beginning with a police and military operation carried out [on September 26, 1976,] during the dictatorship,” and that “continues to this day.” The case also involves the failure to adequately investigate, punish, and provide reparations in connection with these facts. Similarly, a failure to adequately investigate, punish, and provide reparations was alleged for the acts of torture, forced disappearance, and other human rights violations committed to the detriment of Anatole and Victoria, 1 son and daughter of the Julien Grisonas couple, which allegedly took place “as a result of the same operation.” 2. Proceedings before the Commission. The proceedings before the Commission were as follows: a) Petition. On November 11, 2005, Eduardo Marques Iraola (hereinafter “the representative”) filed the initial petition with the Commission. b) Report on Admissibility and Merits. On November 21, 2017, the Commission notified the parties of the application of Article 36(3) of its Rules of Procedure in deferring the treatment of admissibility until the debate and decision on the merits. On May 4, 2019, the Commission approved Report on Admissibility and Merits No. 56/19 (hereinafter also “the Report on the Merits” or “Report No. 56/19”), in which it declared the petition admissible, reached a number of conclusions, and made several recommendations to the State. 3. Notification to the State. The State was notified of the Report on the Merits in a communication dated June 4, 2019 and was given two months to report on compliance with the recommendations. At the request of the State, the Commission granted a first extension. Argentina requested a second extension, for which it indicated that it had “requested information from the different State agencies” regarding the object of the case and had not yet received a full response. According to the Commission, on that occasion, the State "did not provide any information reflecting concrete progress towards complying with the recommendations." 4. Submission to the Court. On December 4, 2019, the Commission submitted this case to the Court, as indicated, “in view of the need to secure justice for the victims." 2 This Court notes with concern that more than 14 years elapsed between the presentation of the initial petition before the Commission and the submission of this case to the Court. 5. The Commission’s requests. The Commission therefore asked the Court to declare Argentina internationally responsible for the violation of the rights to recognition of juridical personality, life, humane treatment, personal liberty, judicial guarantees, and judicial Because they were adopted by Larrabeiti Yáñez family, Anatole Boris and Victoria Eva, biological son and daughter of Mario Roger Julien Cáceres and Victoria Lucía Grisonas Andrijauskaite, identify themselves as Anatole Alejandro and Claudia Victoria, with the surnames Larrabeiti Yáñez (infra pars. 94 and 96 to 98). In this Judgment, the names Anatole and Victoria are used, along with the names and surnames with which both currently identify. 2 The Commission appointed as its delegates before the Court the then-Commissioner Luis Ernesto Vargas Silva and then-Executive Secretary Paulo Abrão, and designated Assistant Executive Secretary Marisol Blanchard and attorneys Jorge Humberto Meza Flores and Analía Banfi Vique as legal advisors. 1 5