2 implementation of the recommendations contained in the report on merits and the lack of substantive progress in complying with them," decided to submit the case to the Court. The Commission appointed Paolo Carozza, Commissioner, and Santiago A. Canton, Executive Secretary, as delegates, and Ariel E. Dulitzky, Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, Juan Pablo Albán A., and Christina M. Cerna, as legal advisers. 2. The application submitted to the competence of the Court the alleged violations committed by the State owing to the alleged forced disappearance and extrajudicial execution of Heliodoro Portugal, the alleged failure to investigate and punish those responsible for this act and the alleged failure to make adequate reparation to his next of kin. According to the Commission's application, on May 14, 1970, Heliodoro Portugal was in a café known as the “Coca-Cola” Café in Panama City, when he was approached by a group of individuals in civilian clothing, who obliged him to get into a vehicle, which drove off to an unknown destination. The Commission alleged that State agents took part in these acts, which occurred at a time when Panama was governed by a military regime. The Commission indicated that, “[d]uring the military dictatorship, it was not possible to have recourse to the domestic authorities to file complaints for human rights violations or to know the whereabouts of a person.” Therefore, the alleged victim’s daughter did not report the disappearance until May 1990, when democracy was restored in the country. In September 1999, the Attorney General’s Office (Ministerio Público) found some remains in the military barracks known as “Los Pumas” in Tocumen, which were presumed to be those of a Catholic priest; however, after they had undergone DNA testing, financed by private sources, they were identified as belonging to the alleged victim. The results of the DNA tests were communicated to the next of kin and made public in August 2000. The corresponding criminal proceeding is still open and those responsible have not been convicted. 3. The Commission asked the Court to declare the international responsibility of the State for the violation of Articles 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) and 7 (Right to Personal Liberty) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Heliodoro Portugal, and also for the violation of Articles 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 8(1) (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Graciela De León (the alleged victim’s permanent companion) and of Patria and Franklin Portugal (the alleged victim’s children). The Commission also asked the Court to declare the international responsibility of the State for failing to comply with the obligation to define the offense of forced disappearance, established in Article III of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons; for failing to comply with the obligation to investigate and punish torture, established in Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, and for failing to make adequate reparation for the violation of the rights that were alleged. In addition, the Commission asked the Court to order the State to adopt various pecuniary and non-pecuniary measures. 4. On April 27, 2007, the representatives of the alleged victim and his next of kin (hereinafter, “the representatives”), that is, Viviana Krsticevic, Soraya Long, Gisela De León and Marcela Martino of “CEJIL,” presented their brief with pleas, motions and evidence (hereinafter “pleas and motions brief”), pursuant to Article 23 of the Rules of Procedure. The representatives asked the Court to declare that the State had committed the same human rights violations alleged by the Commission; in addition, they alleged that the State had violated Article 13 (Freedom of Thought and Expression) of the Convention to the detriment of the alleged victim and his next of kin, because “it had not provided them with the necessary information to determine what had occurred”; Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) of the Convention, to the detriment of the grandchildren of the alleged victim,