2 2. The Commission filed the application on the basis of Article 51 of the American Convention, for the Court to decide whether the State violated Articles 4 (Right to Life), 8 (Right to Fair Trial), 25 (Judicial Protection) in combination with Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of the American Convention to the detriment of Myrna Elizabeth Mack Chang (hereinafter “Myrna Mack Chang”) and her next of kin, “due to the extra-legal execution of Myrna Mack Chang [that took place] on September 11, 1990 in Guatemala City.” 3. The Commission also asked the Court to order the State to make all the pecuniary and non-pecuniary reparations stated in the application. Finally, it asked the Inter-American Court to order Guatemala to pay the costs arising from processing of the case both domestically and internationally before the bodies of the Inter-American System for Protection of Human Rights. 4. According to the Commission, Guatemala is responsible for the arbitrary deprivation of the right to life of Myrna Mack Chang, because the murder of the victim, committed on September 11, 1990, was the consequence of a military intelligence operation, springing from a prior plan and carefully prepared by the high command of the Presidential General Staff. Said plan involved, first, selecting the victim in a precise manner due to her professional activity; second, brutally murdering Myrna Mack Chang; and third, covering up the direct perpetrators and accessories of the murder, obstructing the judicial investigation and insofar as possible ensuring that impunity prevailed with respect to the murder. The Commission added that the State has not resorted to all the means available to it with the aim of conducting a serious and effective investigation that could be the basis for complete elucidation of the facts, prosecution, trial, and punishment of those responsible, both direct perpetrators and accessories, within a reasonable term. This situation has been made worse by the existence of de facto and legal mechanisms, tolerated by the Guatemalan State, that obstruct adequate administration of justice. II COMPETENCE 5. Guatemala has been a State Party to the American Convention since May 25, 1978, and it accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on March 9, 1987. Therefore, the Court is competent to hear the instant case, pursuant to the terms of Articles 62 and 63(1) of the Convention. III PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION 6. On September 12, 1990, the Comisión Guatemalteca de Derechos Humanos [or Guatemalan Human Rights Committee] filed the complaint before the InterAmerican Commission and since April, 1991, the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights and Georgetown University continued the case. Several United States law firms participated in the proceeding, as co-applicants, together with the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights. 7. On September 17, 1990, the Commission opened the case as Nº 10.636. 8. On March 5, 1996, the Commission adopted Report Nº 10/96 in which it declared the case admissible. The Commission also made itself available to the