her observations on the merits, which were remitted to the Guatemalan State on June 10, 2015, within the regulatory four-month deadline. The State presented its observations on the merits on October 9, 2015. Mrs. Villaseñor presented further communications on June 8 and 28, 2016, which were duly forwarded to the State for its information. B. Processing of the precautionary measure 6. In a communication dated July 21, 1994, the Human Rights Office of the Archdiocese of Guatemala asked the IACHR to grant precautionary measures on behalf of María Eugenia Villaseñor, Mario Salvador Jiménez, and Héctor Orellana, due to the threats they allegedly received because of their status as judges of the Court of Appeals. 7. On July 25, 1994, the IACHR requested that the Guatemalan State adopt precautionary measures to protect the life and personal integrity of María Eugenia Villaseñor, Mario Salvador Jiménez, and Héctor Orellana. Those precautionary measures were "issued in response to reports that these magistrates have been stalked, threatened, and harassed in recent days, and that such threats are related to judicial proceedings which they are hearing in that Court and which pertain to rights protected by the American Convention on Human Rights."2 8. While the precautionary measures were in effect, the IACHR received written communications from the petitioners and the State, which were duly forwarded to the parties. On July 26, 2013, the IACHR let Mrs. Villaseñor know that it had decided to lift the precautionary measures. 9. In drawing up this report, the Commission took into account the information presented by the parties during precautionary measures procedure. On June 10, 2015, the IACHR sent the State a note indicating that it had decided to include the file relating to processing of the precautionary measures in its analysis of the instant case. III. POSITION OF THE PARTIES A. Position of the petitioners 10. The petitioners indicated that the State is responsible for a series of verbal and written death threats, stalking, attempts to enter María Eugenia Villaseñor's home, and other acts placing her at risk. They stated that those acts had begun at the beginning of 1994. They pointed out that those acts were due to Mrs. Villaseñor being a judge, who had heard cases involving senior officers in the Guatemalan army accused of serious crimes against property and human rights violations. They maintained that, although they had denounced the acts in question, the authorities had not shed light on them or identified those responsible. The details about the facts and domestic proceedings will be referred to in the Commission’s factual analysis, based on information provided by both parties. 11. With respect to admissibility requirements, the petitioners invoked the unwarranted delay exception established in Article 46.2.c of the American Convention. They argued that, even though the threats to which Mrs. Villaseñor was subjected had been denounced, investigations had not got beyond the initial stage, no light had been shed on the facts of the case, and those responsible had not been identified. 12. As to the merits, they argued that there had been violations of their rights to humane treatment, personal liberty, a fair hearing, privacy, protection of the family, and judicial protection, set forth in Articles 5, 7, 8, 11, 17, and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 of the same instrument. 2 IACHR, Press Release N° 16/94 of July 25, 1994. 2

Seleccionar párrafo de destino3