2 Fernández Ortega (hereinafter, “Mrs. Fernández Ortega” or “the alleged victim”), the Organización Indígena de Pueblos Tlapanecos A.C. [the Indigenous Organization of the Tlapanec People] and the Centro de Derechos Humanos de la Montaña ‘Tlachinollan’ A.C. [Tlachinollan Human Rights Center of the Mountain] (hereinafter also “Tlachinollan”). On October 21, 2006, the Inter-American Commission issued Admissibility Report No. 94/062 and, on October 30, 2008, it approved Report on Merits No. 89/08, pursuant to Article 50 of the Convention, in which it made a series of recommendations to the State.3 The aforementioned report was notified to Mexico on November 7, 2008, and the State was granted two months to provide information on any actions taken to implement the recommendations. On December 12, 2008, the State presented a preliminary report and requested an extension of the time limit to comply with the recommendations indicated. On February 5, 2009, the Commission advised the State that it had been granted a three-month extension. On April 20, 2009, Mexico presented a final report on the state of compliance with the recommendations. The Inter-American Commission submitted the case to the Court, “[h]aving considered the information provided by the parties concerning the implementation of the recommendations contained in the [M]erits [R]eport, and taking into account the absence of substantive progress in effective compliance with them.” The Commission appointed Florentín Meléndez, Commissioner at the time, and its Executive Secretary, Santiago A. Canton, as delegates, and as legal advisors, the Deputy Executive Secretary, Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, and the lawyers, Isabel Madariaga, Juan Pablo Albán Alencastro, Rosa Celorio and Fiorella Melzi, Secretariat specialists. 2. According to the Inter-American Commission, the application refers to the alleged international responsibility of the State for the “rape and torture” of Inés Fernández Ortega that took place on March 22, 2002; the “lack of due diligence in the investigation and punishment of the authors” of these facts; “the failure to make adequate reparation to the [alleged] victim and her next of kin; […] the use of the military justice system to investigate and prosecute human rights violations, and […] the difficulties encountered by indigenous people, indigenous women in particular, to obtain access to justice.” 3. Based on the above, the Inter-American Commission asked the Court to declare the State responsible for the violation of Articles 5 (Right to Humane Treatment [Personal Integrity]), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial [Judicial Guarantees]) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in relation to the general obligation to respect and ensure human rights established in Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mrs. Fernández Ortega and the following next of kin: Fortunato Prisciliano Sierra (husband), Noemí, Ana Luz, Colosio, Nélida and Neftalí Prisciliano Fernández (children), María Lídia Ortega (mother), and Lorenzo and Ocotlan Fernández Ortega (brothers). In addition, it indicated that Mexico is 2 In Admissibility Report No. 94/06, the Commission declared petition No. 540/04 admissible with regard to the alleged violation of Articles 5(1), 7, 8(1), 11, 17, 19, 21 and 25, in relation to Article 1(1), all of the American Convention; as well as to Article 7 of the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women, and Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the InterAmerican Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture (file of annexes to the application, appendix 2, folio 730). 3 In Report on Merits No. 89/08, the Commission concluded that the State was “responsible for violating the rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection embodied in Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, and Articles 5(1) and 11 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this international instrument. Furthermore, it conclude[d] that the State [was] responsible for the violation of Article 7 of the Inter-American Convention [on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women] and Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the InterAmerican Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, to the detriment of [Mrs.] Fernández Ortega. Regarding the next of kin, it conclude[d] that the State [was] responsible for violating Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to the general obligation to respect and ensure rights established in Article 1(1) of this international instrument” (file of annexes to the application, annex 1, folio 720).