3 [García Prieto] […] which occurred on June 10, 1994 in San Salvador, as well as for the [alleged] threats of which his next of kin were subsequently victim[s] due to their role in the investigation, and for the lack of adequate reparations for the victims.” The Commission indicated that the violations for which it was requesting the Court’s ruling “occurred after June 6, 1995, which is the date on which El Salvador [recognized the] contentious jurisdiction" of the Court. 5. The Commission requested that the Court conclude and declare that the State is responsible for the violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, all in conjunction with Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of the Convention, to the detriment of José Mauricio García Prieto Hirlemann, Gloria Giralt de García Prieto, and Carmen Alicia Estrada. As a result of these alleged violations, the Commission requested that the Court order the State to provide certain reparations. 6. In the present case, at the time of the submission of the brief containing pleadings, motions, and evidence (hereinafter, “brief containing pleadings and motions”) the alleged victims had not designated a common intervener. As a result, two independent briefs containing pleadings and motions were submitted. One was submitted by Carmen Alicia Estrada, in her own name and as representative of her son Ramón Mauricio García Prieto Estrada. The other was submitted by José Mauricio García Prieto Hirlemann and Gloria Giralt de García Prieto, parents of Ramón Mauricio García Prieto, as well as by Ile María del Carmen García Prieto Taghioff, Lourdes García Prieto de Patuzzo and Gloria María de los Ángeles García Prieto de Charur (hereinafter, “María de los Ángeles García Prieto de Charur”), sisters of Mr. García Prieto. 7. Mr. Luis Mario Pérez Bennett, representative of Carmen Alicia Estrada and Ramón Mauricio García Prieto Estrada, presented his brief containing pleadings and motions on May 19, 2006. Like the Commission, Mr. Luis Mario Pérez Bennett requested that the Court conclude and declare that the State violated Articles 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, all in conjunction with Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of the Convention, to the detriment of Carmen Alicia Estrada, her minor son Ramón Mauricio García Prieto Estrada and “the other next of kin of Ramón Mauricio García Prieto […]” without specifying the names of these other family members. He asked the Court to order that the State adopt certain measures of reparation. 8. Likewise, José Mauricio García Prieto Hirlemann, Gloria Giralt de García Prieto, Ile María del Carmen García Prieto Taghioff, Lourdes García Prieto de Patuzzo and María de los Ángeles García Prieto de Charur, represented by CEJIL and IDHUCA,3 submitted their brief containing pleadings and motions on May 26, 2006. In this brief, they requested that the Court declare that the State violated Articles 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection), in conjunction with the obligations established in Article 1(1) of the Convention (Obligation to Respect Rights) to the detriment of Ramón Mauricio García Prieto. In addition, they 3 By power of attorney, the alleged victims appointed Matilde Guadalupe Hernández de Espinoza, Claudia María Hernández Galindo and Henri Paul Fino Solórzano of IDHUCA, as well as Viviana Krsticevic and Gisela De León of CEJIL as their representatives.