2 recommendations and decided, unanimously, to submit the instant case to the jurisdiction of the Court.2 2. In its application, the Commission stated that "on the night of February 1, 1988, members of the Colombian National Army burst into the residence of Mr. Germán Escué [Zapata]." According to the Commission, once in there, they tied him up and forced him out of the house, beating him. The Commission pointed out that after they took the alleged victim, his mother went to dwelling of some relatives and heard some shots. Afterwards, she found his dead body in the surrounding areas of the district of Jambaló. The Commission pointed out that the body of Mr. Escué Zapata showed signs of maltreatment. Furthermore, the Commission alleged a lack of due diligence in the investigation of the facts, as well as an alleged denial of justice. 3. The Commission pointed out that Germán Escué Zapata "was a Cabildo Governor of the Indigenous Protection of Jambaló [...] who devoted himself to farming as well as the other members of his [c]ommunity and to the defense of the indigenous [...] territory." According to the application, the execution of Mr. Escué Zapata was framed within a “violent pattern against indigenous peoples who lived in that area of the country and their leaders.” 4. Finally, the Commission requested the Court to declare that the State is responsible for the violation of the rights enshrined in Article 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), and 7 (Right to Personal Liberty) of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) therein, to the detriment of Mr. Germán Escué Zapata; for the violation of the right established in Article 5 of the Convention, to the detriment of the alleged victim’s next of kin and for the violation of the rights established in Article 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) therein, to the detriment of the alleged victim and his relatives. As a result of the above mentioned, the Commission requested to the Court that the State be required to take certain measures of reparation. 5. On September 18, 2006, the “José Alvear Restrepo” Lawyers’ Collective Association (Corporación Colectivo de Abogados Jose Alvear Restrepo), representatives of the alleged victim and of his next of kin in the case at hand (hereinafter, the “representatives”) filed a brief containing pleadings, motions and evidence (hereinafter, “brief containing pleadings and arguments") under the terms of Article 23 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. The representatives pointed out that they share “in essence, the legal and factual arguments of the application filed by the Commission.” Nevertheless, they requested the Court to declare, apart from the violations alleged by the Commission, that the State is internationally responsible for the violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 11(2) (Protection to the Honor and Dignity), 21 (Right to Property) and 23 (Right to Participate in Government) of the American Convention, because the militaries allegedly stole some goods from the household of the alleged victim and from the “community store” and because they did not let Mr. Escué Zapata continue in charge of the position he had in the Community according to their own traditions and ways of election. Given the above-mentioned allegations, they requested the Court to order the State to adopt certain reparations measures. 6. On November 17, 2006, the State filed a brief containing the answer to the petition and its comments on the brief of pleadings and arguments (hereinafter, “answer to the 2 The Commission appointed Mr. Victor Abramovich, Commissioner and Mr. Santiago A. Canton, Executive Secretary as delegates and lawyers Ariel E. Dulitzky, Victor H. Madrigal Borloz, Verónica Gómez and Juan Pablo Albán as legal advisors.