4 requested that the Court declare that the State violated Article 4 (Right to Life), in relation with Article 1(1) of the Convention to the detriment of Ramón Mauricio García Prieto due to the State’s failure to adequately and effectively investigate his death. Furthermore, they requested that the Court declare that the State violated Articles 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 11(2) (Right to Privacy), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection), in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the American Convention, to the detriment of José Mauricio García Prieto Hirlemann, Gloria Giralt de García Prieto, María de los Ángeles García Prieto de Charur, Ile María del Carmen García Prieto Taghioff and Lourdes Elizabeth García Prieto de Patuzzo, as well as Carmen Alicia Estrada and Ramón Mauricio García Prieto Estrada. They also requested that the Court order the State to adopt certain measures of reparation. 9. On July 12, 2006, in accordance with Article 23(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court designated CEJIL and IDHUCA as common intervener, due to the lack of an agreement in this respect among the alleged victims.4 10. On July 24, 2006, the State5 submitted its preliminary objections, its reply to the application, and its observations with respect to the briefs containing pleadings and motions (hereinafter, “State’s reply brief”), in which it requested that the Court declare that it had not violated Articles 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) in conjunction with Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of the American Convention, to the detriment of the next of kin of Ramón Mauricio García Prieto, as was alleged by the Commission. Likewise, the State raised three preliminary objections: lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis, the failure to exhaust domestic remedies, and the informality of the application (infra para. 30 to 59). 11. On September 8, 2006, the Commission and CEJIL and IDHUCA submitted their briefs with respect to the preliminary objections raised by the State, in which they requested that the Court dismiss the State’s preliminary objections and proceed with the merits of the case. Finally, on September 11, 2006, CEJIL and IDHUCA, as common intervener, submitted a brief, prepared by the representative of Ms. Estrada and her son, which contained observations with respect to the State’s preliminary objections. II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 12. The application was served upon the State6 and the representatives on March 24, 2006. During the proceedings before this Tribunal, in addition to the principal 4 On July 12, 2006, the Secretariat, following the President’s instructions, requested that the representatives choose a common intervener in accordance with Article 23(2) of the Rules of Procedure. 5 On April 21, 2006, the State appointed Oscar Alfredo Santamaría as its agent, and Ambassador Milton José Colindres Uceda as its alternate agent. 6 When the application was served upon the State, the State was informed of its right to designate an ad hoc judge to participate in the deliberation of the case. On May 11, 2006, after being granted an extension, the State designated Mr. Alejandro Montiel Argüello as ad hoc judge. On January 25, 2007, Mr. Alejandro Montiel Argüello informed the Court, that, due to circumstances beyond his control, he would be unable to be present at the public hearing of the present case. By a communication dated July 4, 2007, the State asked whether it would be permitted to designate a new ad hoc judge. By a communication dated July 9, 2007, the State was informed that it was not possible to grant the request.