5 obligations under article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) and 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) of the Convention; and for default in complying with the obligations in articles 1, 6, 8 and 10 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, in detriment of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel. Likewise, the Commission requested the Tribunal to order the State to adopt several reparation measures. 4. On November 2, 2009, the Human Rights Center Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez A.C.4 [Centro de Derechos Humanos Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez A.C.] (hereinafter “Centro Prodh”), the Center for Justice and International Law5 (hereinafter, “CEJIL”) and the Human Rights Center of the Mountain Tlachinollan A.C.6 [Centro de Derechos Humanos de la Montaña Tlachinollan A.C.] (all of them, hereinafter “the representatives”) filed the brief containing pleadings, motions and evidence (hereinafter, “brief of pleadings and motions”). Apart from the rights alleged by the Commission, the representatives alleged that torture was committed in the instant case; therefore, they alleged the violation of article 5 (Humane Treatment [Personal Integrity]) to the detriment of the alleged victims’ relatives, due to the “suffering caused by the violations against their beloved ones and the impunity that remains of such violations;” the violation of article 16 (Right to Assembly) of the American Convention against Messrs. Cabrera García and Montiel Flores, since the violations against them were as a “retaliation for their participation in an organization for the defense of the environment and because the State did not ensure that they could carry out their work in safe conditions.” Within the framework of the foregoing, they also alleged the violation of article 7 (Personal Liberty) in relation to paragraphs 7(1), 7(2), 7(3) and 7(4) of the American Convention. Lastly, the representatives requested the Tribunal to order the State to adopt several reparation measures. 5. On February 7, 2010 the State lodged preliminary objections, answered the claim and made observations to the brief of pleadings and motions (hereinafter “answer to the claim”). The State lodged the preliminary objection about the “[l]ack of competence of the Court to hear the merits of the […] claim in the light of the principle of fourth instance.” Likewise, the State denied its international responsibility for the violation of the rights alleged by the other parties. The State appointed Ambassador Zadalinda González y Reynero as its Agent. 6. According to article 38(4) of the Rules of Procedure, on April 2, 2010 the Commission and the representatives submitted their arguments to the preliminary objection lodged by the State. II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 7. The application of the Commission was notified to the representatives and the State on September 2, 2009. On that same day, following the instructions by the Court’s President and according to the applicable Court’s Rules of Procedure, the State was asked about its purpose to appoint an ad hoc Judge for this case.7 4 On behalf of Centro Prodh, Stephanie Erin Brewer, Jaqueline Saenz, Jorge Santiago Aguirre Espinosa and Luis Arriaga Valenzuela, Director of Centro Prodh signed the brief. 5 On behalf of CEJIL, Annette Martínez, Luis Diego Obando, Gisela de León, Alejandra Nuño and Viviana Krsticevic, Director of CEJIL, signed the brief. 6 On behalf of Centro de Derechos Humanos de la Montaña “Tlachinollan”, Abel Barrera, Director of Tlachinollan, signed the brief. 7 The Court informed on the declaration by Judge Sergio García Ramírez about not hearing this case “[s]ince as he h[a]s constantly expressed, he consider[s] that it is not appropriate for a judge to participate if he has the same nationality as the respondent State..”