2 I SUBMISSION OF THE CASE AND OBJECT OF THE DISPUTE 1. On July 24, 2006, pursuant to Articles 50 and 61 of the American Convention, the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) filed an application before the Court against the State of Ecuador (hereinafter “the State” or “Ecuador”). The application originated from petition No. 11.579, which was submitted by the Comisión Ecuménica de Derechos Humanos (hereinafter “CEDHU”) to the Registry of the Commission on November 8, 1994. On February 28, 2006, the Commission adopted report No. 8/06 on the admissibility and merits of the case, pursuant to Article 50 of the Convention, in which it made certain recommendations to the State1. On July 18, 2006, the Commission decided to submit the instant case to the contentious jurisdiction of the Court2, in view of the failure of the State to submit any reply. 2. The application concerns the alleged extrajudicial execution of Wilmer Zambrano Vélez, Segundo Olmedo Caicedo Cobeña and José Miguel Caicedo Cobeña, allegedly committed on March 6, 1993, in Guayaquil, Ecuador, and the alleged subsequent lack of investigation of the facts. The Commission points outs that “Wilmer Zambrano Vélez, Segundo Olmedo Caicedo and José Miguel Caicedo were [allegedly] executed during [an operation of the Armed Forces and the National Police of Ecuador] carried out within the framework of a suspension of guarantees which did not comply with the established standards”. Furthermore, the Commission alleges that “more than 13 years after the facts [happened], the State has not undertaken any serious investigation, nor has it identified the perpetrators and masterminds of the [alleged] victims’ executions, which is why [… they] remain unpunished”. 3. The Commission requested the Court to conclude and declare that the State is responsible for the violation of “its obligations set forth in Articles 27 (Suspension of Guarantees), 4 (Right to Life), 8 (Judicial Guarantees) and 25 (Judicial Protection), in conjunction with Articles 1(1) [(Obligation to Respect Rights)] and 2 [(Obligation to Adopt Domestic Measures) thereof]”. The Commission therefore requested that the Court order the State to adopt certain reparation measures. 4. On October 16, 2006, the representatives of the alleged victims' family members, CEDHU (hereinafter “the representatives”), submitted their brief on pleadings, motions and evidence (hereinafter “brief on pleadings and motions”) pursuant to Article 23 of the Rules of Procedure. On the grounds of the facts mentioned by the Commission in its application, the representatives requested that the Court conclude and declare the international responsibility of the State for the violation of the same provisions as alleged by the Commission, to the detriment of the said alleged victims and their family members. Therefore, they requested that the Court order the State to adopt certain reparation measures. In the report on the merits, the Commission concluded that Ecuador “violated its obligations set forth in Article 27 of the American Convention [… and those] resulting from Article 4 (right to life) in conjunction with Article 1(1) [of that treaty], for the death of the persons identified in the present report during the March 6, 1992, operation[sic]”; and that the State “is responsible for violating Articles 8 and 25 (judicial guarantees and judicial protection) in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 of the [American] Convention for the failure to seriously and effectively investigate, prosecute and punish the responsible parties and for the failure to provide effective reparation to the victims of these violations and to their next-ofkin”. Moreover, “with regard to the right to humane treatment and the right to personal liberty, […the Commission concluded that] violations of these rights have not been established in the course of this proceeding [and] accordingly, the State did not controvert the rights set forth in Articles 5 and 7 of the Convention.” Finally, the Commission made certain recommendations to the State. 1 The Commission appointed Evelio Fernández Arévalos, Commissioner, and Santiago A. Canton, Executive Secretary, as delegates; and Víctor Madrigal Borloz, Ariel E. Dulitzky, Mario López Garelli and Lilly Ching as legal advisers. 2