Executive Secretary, Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, together with Karla I. Quintana Osuna and Karin Mansel, Executive Secretariat lawyers, as legal advisers. 3. Request of the Inter-American Commission. Based on the above, the Inter-American Commission asked the Court to declare the international responsibility of Colombia for the violation of the following rights recognized in the American Convention: a. “the violation of the rights to life and to personal integrity recognized in Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention, in relation to its Article 1(1) to the detriment of Marino López and Article 5 to the detriment of the members of his family”; b. “the violation of the right to personal integrity recognized in Article 5 of the Convention, in relation to its Article 1(1) to the detriment of the members of the Cacarica communities associated in CAVIDA and the women heads of household who live in Turbo, and also in relation to its Article 19, to the detriment of the children of the community and of Marino López”; c. “the violation of the right to freedom of movement and residence established in Article 22 of the Convention, in relation to its Articles 1(1), 5, 11, 17, 19, 21 and 24 to the detriment of the members of the Afro-descendant communities of the Cacarica associated in CAVIDA and the women heads of household who live in Turbo, and also in relation to its Article 19 to the detriment of the children”; d. “the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection established in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in relation to its Article 1(1) and of Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, to the detriment of the family of Marino López,” and e. “the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection established in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in relation to its Article 1(1), to the detriment of the members of the Cacarica communities associated in CAVIDA and the women heads of household who live in Turbo.” 4. In addition, the Inter-American Commission asked the Court to order the State to provide specific measures of reparation, which will be described and analyzed in the corresponding chapter (infra Chapter X). II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 5. Notification of the State and the representatives. The Commission’s submission of the case was notified to the State and the representatives on November 29, 2011. 6. Brief with motions, arguments and evidence. On January 29, 2012, the representatives presented their brief with motions, arguments and evidence3 (hereinafter “motions and arguments brief”), pursuant to Articles 25 and 40 of the Rules of Procedure. 7. Answering brief. On June 7, 2012, the State submitted to the Court its brief filing preliminary objections,4 answering the submission of the case, and with observations on the motions and arguments brief (hereinafter “answer” or “answering brief”). Initially, the State appointed Assad Jose Jater Peña and Jorge Alberto Giraldo Rivera as Agents. Subsequently, on January 29, 2013, it appointed Rafael Nieto Loaiza as Agent for this case.5 3 The representatives sent the motions and arguments brief by email. They forwarded the original brief and some annexes to the Court with a communication of February 29, 2012. Subsequently, in a communication of March 19, 2012, following a request for clarification sent by the Secretariat, the representatives sent the missing annexes to the motions and arguments brief, as well as the pertinent clarifications. 4 The preliminary objections filed by the State were “lack of competence” ratione personae, failure of the Commission to comply with the requirements established in Article 35(1)(c) for the submission of the case, and failure of the motions, arguments and evidence brief to comply with the regulatory requirements. 5 In its answering brief of June 7, 2012, the State appointed Luz Marina Gil and Jorge Alberto Giraldo Rivera as Agent and José Emilio Lemus Mesa as adviser. In a note of the Secretariat of July 6, 2012, regarding the said appointment, the Court indicated that it understood that Assad José Jater Peña would no longer be acting as the State’s Agent. Finally, in a communication of January 29, 2013, received by the Court’s Secretariat the same day, the State appointed Rafael Nieto Loaiza as its sole agent. In a communication of February 8, 2013, the State advised that Luz Marina Gil García would no longer form part of its delegation during the public hearing. 6