G. Method of complying with the payments ordered................................................................................................... 215 XV. OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS ................................................................................................................................ 216 I INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE DISPUTE 1. The case submitted to the Court. On February 9, 2012, in accordance with Articles 51 and 61 of the American Convention and Article 35 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) submitted the case entitled Carlos Augusto Rodríguez Vera et al. (Palace of Justice) v. the Republic of Colombia (hereinafter “the State” or “Colombia”) to the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court. According to the Commission the facts of this case occurred in the context of the events known as the taking and retaking of the Palace of Justice in Bogota, which took place on November 6 and 7, 1985. In particular, the case relates to the presumed forced disappearance of Carlos Augusto Rodríguez Vera, Cristina del Pilar Guarín Cortés, David Suspes Celis, Bernardo Beltrán Hernández, Héctor Jaime Beltrán Fuentes, Gloria Stella Lizarazo, Luz Mary Portela León, Norma Constanza Esguerra Forero, Lucy Amparo Oviedo Bonilla, Gloria Anzola de Lanao, Ana Rosa Castiblanco Torres and Irma Franco Pineda during the operation to retake the building. The case also relates to the presumed disappearance and subsequent execution of Justice Carlos Horacio Urán Rojas, as well as to the presumed detention and torture of Yolanda Santodomingo Albericci, Eduardo Matson Ospino, Orlando Quijano and José Vicente Rubiano Galvis, and to the alleged failure of the courts to clarify all these events and to punish all those responsible. 2. Procedure before the Commission. The procedure before the Commission was as follows: a) Petition and Report on Admissibility and Merits. The petition was lodged before the Commission in December 1990. 1 On October 31, 2011, the Commission approved Report on Admissibility and Merits No. 137/11, pursuant to Article 50 of the Convention (hereinafter “the Admissibility and Merits Report” or “the Merits Report”). In this report, the Commission reached a series of conclusions and made several recommendations to the State: 2 • Conclusions. The Commission concluded that the State was responsible for: i. The violation of the rights to personal liberty, humane treatment, life, recognition of juridical personality (Articles 7, 5, 4 and 3 of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument) in relation to Articles I(a) and XI of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons (hereinafter “Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance”), to the detriment of Carlos Augusto Rodríguez Vera, Cristina del Pilar Guarín Cortés, David Suspes Celis, Bernardo Beltrán Hernández, Héctor Jaime Beltrán Fuentes, Gloria Stella Lizarazo Figueroa, Luz Mary Portela León, Norma Constanza Esguerra Forero, Lucy Amparo Oviedo Bonilla, Gloria Anzola de Lanao, Ana Rosa Castiblanco Torres, Irma Franco Pineda and Carlos Horacio Urán Rojas. ii. The violation of the rights to personal liberty and to humane treatment (Articles 7 and 5 of the 1 The initial petition was lodged by Enrique Rodríguez Hernández based on the alleged disappearance of Carlos Augusto Rodríguez Vera, Cristina del Pilar Guarín Cortés, David Suspes Celis, Bernardo Beltrán Hernández, Héctor Jaime Beltrán Fuentes, Gloria Stella Lizarazo Figueroa, Luz Mary Portela León, Ana Rosa Castiblanco Torres, Norma Constanza Esguerra Forero, Lucy Amparo Oviedo Bonilla, Gloria Anzola de Lanao and Irma Franco Pineda. Subsequently, while the case was being processed by the Commission, the Colectivo de Abogados “José Alvear Restrepo” and the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL) joined the case as co-petitioners, and allegations were added relating to the presumed disappearance and subsequent execution of Auxiliary Justice Carlos Horacio Urán Rojas, and also to the presumed detention and torture of Yolanda Santodomingo Albericci, Orlando Quijano, José Vicente Rubiano Galvis and Eduardo Matson Ospino. 2 The Commission’s recommendations in its Merits Report correspond to its claims before the Court and are therefore described in the chapter on reparations of this judgment. 5