2 admissibility and merits No. 76/05, which made specific recommendations to the State.2 On February 13, 2006, the Commission decided to submit the case to the jurisdiction of the Court “because it considered that the State had not adopted the recommendations made in the said report satisfactorily.”3 2. The application refers to the alleged “kidnapping, [...] torture and [...] extrajudicial execution of Saúl Isaac Cantoral-Huamaní and Consuelo Trinidad García-Santa Cruz [...] on February 13, 1989, in Lima, Peru, and to the total impunity of these facts.” The Commission indicated “the importance of submitting this case to the Court, because more than 17 years have elapsed and the next of kin of the [alleged] victims have been unable to discover the truth about the violations of the rights of the [alleged] victims, and those responsible have not been punished.” In addition, the Commission considered that this is “an opportunity for the Court to rule on the activities of the ‘Rodrigo Franco Commando,’ which was composed of State agents and which was responsible for grave human rights violations during the period 1985-1990.” The Commission also stated that “since the [alleged] victims were prominent trade union leaders and miners, this case deals with the problem of the State’s repressive activities against trade union leaders to discourage social protest in Peru and, in general, with the effects on freedom of association.” 3. The Commission asked the Court to conclude and declare that the State was responsible for “the violation of the rights to personal liberty, to humane treatment, to life, to judicial guarantees, to judicial protection, and to freedom of association embodied in Articles 7, 5, 4, 8, 25 and 16 of the American Convention on Human Rights in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, as of February 13, 1989, and Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, as of March 28, 1991, to the detriment of Saúl Isaac Cantoral Huamaní, Consuelo Trinidad García Santa Cruz, and their next of kin.” In consequence, the Commission asked the Court to order the State to take specific measures of reparation. 4. On May 17, 2006, in keeping with Article 23 of the Rules of Procedure, the representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin, the Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos (APRODEH) (hereinafter “the representatives”), presented their brief with requests, arguments and evidence (hereinafter “requests and arguments brief”). Based on the facts mentioned by the Commission in its application, the representatives asked the Court to declare that the State “was responsible for the violation of Articles 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 4 (Right to Life), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), 25 (Judicial Protection) and 16 (Freedom of Association) of the American Convention on Human Rights to the detriment of Saúl Isaac Cantoral-Huamaní and Consuelo Trinidad García-Santa Cruz.” They also asked the Court to declare that the State “had violated [Articles] 5 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights in relation to Article 1(1) thereof to the detriment of the next of kin of Saúl Isaac Cantoral-Huamaní and Consuelo Trinidad García-Santa Cruz.” In addition, they requested specific measures of reparation and reimbursement of the costs and expenses incurred in processing the case at the national level and in the international proceedings. 2 In the Report on merits, the Commission concluded that the State was responsible for violating the rights to life (Article 4), humane treatment (Article 5), personal liberty (Article 7), a fair trial (Article 8), judicial protection (Article 25) and freedom of association (Article 16) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. 3 The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights appointed as its delegates: President, Clare Kamau Roberts, Executive Secretary, Santiago A. Canton, and as its legal advisers, Ariel E. Dulitzky, María Claudia Pulido, Víctor Madrigal Borloz and Manuela Cuvi Rodríguez. As of April 18, 2006, the Commission’s delegates were Paolo Carozza, Commissioner, and Santiago A. Canton, Executive Secretary.