5 d). the right to the recognition of juridical personality, the protection of honor and dignity, the right to a name, special measures of protection for the child, and the right to nationality, recognized in Articles 3, 11, 18, 19, and 20, respectively, in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention, regarding María Macarena Gelman; and, e). the right of protection of the family, recognized in Article 17 of the American Convention and Article XII of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention, regarding Juan Gelman, María Macarena Gelman, and their next of kin. The Commission ultimately requested the Court to order specific measures of reparation from the State. 4. On April 24, 2010, the representatives of the alleged victims (hereinafter “the representatives”) 5 presented, in the terms of Article 40 of the Rules of Procedure, the written brief containing pleadings, motions, and evidence (hereinafter "the brief pleadings and motions"), wherein—referencing the mentioned facts in the application of the Commission—provided more information on said facts, and in general, agreed with that alleged by the Commission. Nevertheless, they requested that the Court also declare the following: a) the noncompliance with the State obligation to act with due diligence to prevent, investigate, and punish violence against women, contained in Article 7(b) of the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence Against Women (hereinafter "Convention of Belém do Pará"), to the detriment of Maria Claudia García, and b) the violation of the right to the truth, to the detriment of the next of kin of Maria Claudia García “and of Uruguayan society” (Articles 1(1), 13, 8, and 25 of the American Convention). Lastly, the representatives requested various measures of reparation. 5. On August 12, 2010, the State presented its brief in response to the application and observations on the brief of pleadings and motions (hereinafter “the answer to the application”), wherein “it recogniz[ed] the violation of the Human Rights of Mrs. María Claudia García Iruretagoyena de Gelman and María Macarena de Gelman García during the de [f]acto government in Uruguay between June 1973 and February 1985”. Although the State did not refer particularly to most of the alleged facts and law presented by the Commission and the representatives, it highlighted the actions being carried out to offer a reparation to the next of kin and to the alleged victims.6 II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT                                                          5 Mr. José Luis González has been the representative since the beginning of this case and Ms. Viviana Krsticevic, Ariela Peralta, Liliana Tojo, Alejandra Arancedo, and Martine Lemmens, of the Center for Justice and International Law Centro (CEJIL), have acted as representatives in the proceedings before the Court. 6 The State appointed Mr. Carlos Mata Prates as its agent.