asked the Court to declare the violation of Article 5 (Right to Personal Integrity), 8 (Right to Judicial Guarantees) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof (Obligation to Respect Rights), to the detriment of his wife Rose Benoit Fleury, their daughters Rose M. and Flemingkov Fleury, and their son Heulingher Fleury. Lastly, it asked for specific reparations and the payment of costs and expenses for the litigation of the case at the domestic and the international levels. 4. The application was notified to the State of Haiti and to the representatives of the alleged victims on September 9, 2009. 5. On November 27, 2009, Meetali Jain, Andrea Pestone and Smita Rao of the International Human Rights Law Clinic at American University,4 representatives of the alleged victims (hereinafter “the representatives”), submitted to the Court their brief with pleadings, motions and evidence (hereinafter “the pleadings and motions brief”), pursuant to Article 36 of the Rules of Procedure. In this brief, they referred to the facts described in the Commission’s application, providing further information on them, and argued that, in addition to the violations alleged by the Commission, the State was responsible for the violation of the rights recognized in Articles 16 (Freedom of Association) and 22 (Freedom of Movement and Residence), in relation to Article 1(1), all of the American Convention, to the detriment of Mr. Fleury and his family. Lastly, the representatives requested specific reparations and payment of costs and expenses. 6. Taking into account the conditions of the Haitian institutional framework, and the dimension of the earthquake that occurred in January 2010 that seriously affected the functioning of the State, in an order of February 1, 2010, the Court considered that, at that time, it would be excessive to require the State to comply with the time frame established in the Rules of Procedure to answer the application and present observations on the pleadings and motions brief, since this had almost expired. Consequently, it decided that, during its first regular session of 2011, it would determine how to continue processing this case and, in particular, how to calculate the said time frame for the State to submit its answer to the application. In addition, it indicated that its previous decision did not suspend the other obligations of the State derived from the American Convention and other pertinent international treaties. On March 4, 2011, the State was informed that the suspension of the proceedings had concluded, so that they were re-opened as of that date. Nevertheless, during the proceedings before the Court, the State did not answer the application or the pleadings and motions brief of the representatives; furthermore, it did not participate in any way. Consequently, the Court has had to resume the proceedings and, in compliance with its functions under the Convention, must now deliver judgment. II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 7. On March 4, 2011, on the instructions of the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”), the Secretariat informed the State of the conclusion of the time granted for the suspension of the proceedings in this case, established in the second operative paragraph of the above-mentioned order (supra para. 6), and that the proceedings would resume as of that date. Consequently, the Secretariat advised that the two-month period established in Article 39 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure for the State to present its answer to the 4 Subsequently, the representatives advised that, as of August 10, 2011, David Baluarte would be acting as a lawyer in the case (evidence file, tome III, folio 1048). 5