of the Convention, in relation to Article 4 (Right to Life) of the Convention, all in connection with failure to comply with Articles 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) and 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) of this instrument, to the detriment of the next of kin of Mr. Palma Mendoza, namely: Lidia Guadalupe Bravo (hereinafter also “Lidia Bravo” or “Mrs. Bravo”), Luis Miguel Palma Bravo (hereinafter also “Luis Palma Bravo”), Nelson José Palma Mendoza (hereinafter also “Nelson Palma Mendoza”), Rosalía Palma Bravo, Perfelita Matilde Mendoza Aguallo (hereinafter also “Perfelita Mendoza Aguallo” or Perfelita Mendoza”), Carlos Alberto Palma Mendoza (hereinafter also “Carlos Palma Mendoza”), Víctor Ludino Palma Mendoza (hereinafter also “Víctor Palma Mendoza”) and Pablo Antonio Palma Pico (hereinafter also “Pablo Palma Pico”). II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 4. The case was notified to the State and the representatives on May 16, 2011. On July 18, 2011, Elsie Monge and César Duque, members of CEDHU, representing the presumed victims (hereinafter “the representatives”), presented their brief with pleadings, motions and evidence (hereinafter “pleadings and motions brief”). In this brief, they referred to the facts described by the Commission, expanding upon them. They did not name Marco Bienvenido Palma Mendoza as a presumed victim, and neither did the Commission (supra para. 3) and, in general agreed with the violations alleged by the Commission to the detriment of Mr. Palma’s next of kin.1 However, they did not ask the Court to declare the violation of Article 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) of the American Convention. Lastly, they requested various measures of reparation. 5. On October 21, 2010, the State presented its brief filing a preliminary objection, answering the submission of the case, and with observations on the pleadings and motions brief (hereinafter “answering brief”). The State referred to the factual and legal arguments presented by the Commission and the representatives, and asked the Court to accept the preliminary objection filed concerning “the so-called fourth instance formula” and to declare that the State had not violated Articles 8, 25, and 5 in relation to Article 4 of the American Convention and to Article 1(1) thereof. It also referred to the measures of reparation requested and the claim for costs and expenses. The State appointed Erick Roberts Garcés, National Director of Human Rights of the Attorney General’s Office, as Agent, and Alonso Fonseca Garcés, as Deputy Agent. 6. On December 2 and 6, 2011, the representatives and the Commission, respectively, presented their written arguments on the preliminary objection filed by the State, and asked the Court to reject it and proceed to the merits of the case. 7. By an Order of January 25, 2012, the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”) required that the statements of two presumed victims be received by affidavit. In addition, he summoned the parties to a public hearing, held at its headquarters, on March 1, 2012, during the ninety-fourth regular session of the Court,2 in order to receive the 1 The representatives named the following as Mr. Palma’s next of kin: Lidia Bravo, Luis Palma Bravo, María Lilibeth Palma Bravo, Wider Ramón Palma Bravo, William Marco Palma Bravo, Geoconda María Palma Figueroa, Monserrate Lili Palma Cedeño, Robinson Marcos Palma Mendoza, Nelson Palma Mendoza, Perfelita Mendoza Aguallo, Víctor Palma Mendoza, Manuel Vicente Palma Mendoza, Aura Indelira Palma Mendoza, Laurentina Leonor Palma Mendoza, Julio César Palma Mendoza and Pablo Palma Pico. 2 At this hearing, the following appeared: (a) for the Inter-American Commission: Silvia Serrano Guzmán and Tatiana Gos, Advisers; (b) for the representatives of the presumed victims: César Duque, of CEDHU, and (c) for the State: Alonso Fonseca Garcés, Deputy Agent, and Carlos Espin Arias, Lawyer. 4