22 VII MERITS 87. In the present case, the Commission and the representatives claim that Juan Arrom Suhurt and Anuncio Martí Méndez were victims of forced disappearance and torture between January 17 and 30, 2002. The State emphasized that the participation of state agents in such events has not been proven, and thus it is not internationally responsible. In addition, whether or not the State carried out a complete and diligent investigation and is responsible for alleged violations against the next of kin is in contention. 88. This Court notes that the representatives alleged the violation of Articles 11, 22 and 2 of the American Convention and Articles 7 and 9 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, without presenting arguments on why they considered that they had been violated. The Commission did not allege the violation of the mentioned articles. Therefore, the Court considers that it does not have elements to rule on the alleged violation of said provisions123. 89. According to the arguments of the parties and the Commission, in this case the Court will examine (1) the alleged violation of the rights to personal liberty, personal integrity, life, and juridical personality, (2) the alleged violations of judicial guarantees and judicial protection, and (3) the alleged violation of the personal integrity of the next of kin of Juan Arrom Suhurt and Anuncio Martí Méndez. In the final arguments, the representatives also alleged the violation of Article 24 of the Convention, as well as Article 2 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture and Articles VII, IX, and XI of the InterAmerican Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. However, these allegations were submitted extemporaneously, so the Court will not rule on the matter. 123