3 I INTRODUCTION TO THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE DISPUTE 1. On March 26, 2009, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 51 and 61 of the American Convention, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter, “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) submitted an application against the Federal Republic of Brazil (hereinafter, “the State,” “Brazil,” or “the Union”) to the Court, which originated from the petition presented on August 7, 1995 by the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL), Human Rights Watch/Americas, in the name of disappeared persons in the context of the Guerrilha do Araguaia (hereinafter, also “the Guerrilla”) and their next of kin.2 On March 6, 2001, the Commission issued Admissibility Report No. 33/01,3 and on October 31, 2008, approved the Report on the Merits No. 91/08, pursuant to Article 50 of the Convention, in which it made a series of recommendations for the State.4 This report was notified to Brazil on November 21, 2008, and the State was granted a period of two months to provide information on any actions taken to implement the recommendations of the Commission. Despite the two extensions afforded to the State, the period of time for it to present information regarding compliance with the recommendations elapsed without there having been “satisfactory implementation of [them].” As such, the Commission decided to submit the case to the Court, considering that it represented “an important opportunity for the Court to consolidate the InterAmerican jurisprudence on amnesty laws in relation to enforced disappearances and extrajudicial executions, and the State’s consequential obligation to provide society with the truth, investigate, prosecute, and punish serious human rights violations.” Likewise, the Commission emphasized the historical value of the case and the possibility that the Court could affirm the non-compatibility, of not only the amnesty laws, but also of the laws on confidentiality of documents with the American Convention. The Commission designated as delegates, Mr. Felipe González, Commissioner, and Santiago A. Canton, Executive Secretary, and as legal advisors, the Deputy Executive Secretary, Mrs. Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, and the lawyers, Lilly Ching Soto and Mario López Garelli, Executive Secretariat specialists. 2 Subsequently, the Next of Kin of the Politically Deceased and Disappeared Persons of the Institute of Studies on State Violence, Angela Harkavy, and the Grupo Tortura Nunca Más de Río de Janeiro [Group Torture Never Again from Rio de Janeiro], joined as petitioners. 3 In the Admissibility Report No. 33/01 the Commission declared admissible the case No. 11.552 in regard to the alleged violation of Articles 4, 8, 12, 13, and 25, in accordance with 1(1), all of the American Convention, as well as Articles I, XXV, and XXVI on the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man (hereinafter, “American Declaration”), (case file of annexes to the petition, appendix 3, tome III, folio 2322). 4 In the Report on the Merits No. 91/08 the Commission concluded that the State was responsible for the violations of the human rights established in Articles I, XXV, and XXVI of the American Declaration and 4, 5, and 7 in relation with Article 1(1) of the American Convention, to the detriment of the disappeared victims; in Articles XVII of the American Declaration, and 3 in relation with Article 1(1) of the American Convention, to the detriment of the disappeared persons; in Articles I of the American Declaration and 5 of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1(1) to the detriment of the next of kin of the disappeared persons; in Article 13 of the American Convention, in relation with Article 2 of the same, to the detriment of the next of kin of the disappeared; in Articles XVIII of the American Declaration, and 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention in relation with Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same, to the detriment of the disappeared persons and their next of kin of the disappeared persons in virtue of the application of the amnesty law to the disappeared persons; to Articles XVIII of the American Declaration and 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, in relation with Article 1(1) of the same, to the detriment of the disappeared persons and their next of kin, in virtue of the ineffectiveness of the non-criminal judicial actions filed in the framework of the present case (case file of annexes to the petition, appendix 3, tome VII, folio 3655).