(Domestic Legal Effects) of the Convention; and for non-compliance with the obligations set forth in Articles 1, 6, 8 and 10 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, to the detriment of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel. The Commission also asked the Court to order the State to implement several measures of reparation. 4. On November 2, 2009, the Human Rights Center Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez A.C. 4 [Centro de Derechos Humanos Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez A.C.] (hereinafter “Centro Prodh”), the Center for Justice and International Law 5 (hereinafter, “CEJIL”) and the Human Rights Center of Montaña Tlachinollan A.C. 6 [Centro de Derechos Humanos de la Montaña Tlachinollan A.C.] (hereinafter “the representatives”) filed the brief containing pleadings, motions and evidence (hereinafter, “brief of pleadings and motions”). In addition to the violation of rights alleged by the Commission, the representatives alleged that torture was committed in this case, in violation of Article 5 (Humane Treatment [Personal Integrity]) to the detriment of the alleged victims’ relatives, due to the “suffering caused by the violations against their loved ones and the continued impunity of said violations;” the violation of Article 16 (Freedom of Association) of the American Convention to the detriment of Messrs. Cabrera García and Montiel Flores, since the violations against them were in “retaliation for their participation in an organization for the defense of the environment and because the State did not ensure that they could carry out their work in safety.” Within this framework, they also alleged the violation of Article 7 (Personal Liberty) in relation to paragraphs 7(1), 7(2), 7(3) and 7(4) of the American Convention. Lastly, the representatives requested that the Court order the State to adopt several reparation measures. 5. On February 7, 2010 the State submitted a brief containing its preliminary objections, its answer to the application and observations to the brief of pleadings and motions (hereinafter “answer brief”). In said brief the State filed a preliminary objection concerning the Court’s “[l]ack of jurisdiction to hear the merits of the […] petition under the principle of fourth instance.” Likewise, the State denied its international responsibility for the violation of the rights alleged by the other parties. The State appointed Ambassador Zadalinda González y Reynero as its Agent. 6. In accordance with Article 38(4) of the Rules of Procedure, on April 2, 2010 the Commission and the representatives submitted their arguments in relation to the preliminary objection filed by the State. II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 7. The representatives and the State were notified of the Commission’s application on September 2, 2009. On that same day, upon the instructions of the President of the Court and according to the applicable Rules of Procedure, the State was asked about its reasons for appointing an ad hoc Judge for this case. 7 On 4 On behalf of Centro Prodh, Stephanie Erin Brewer, Jaqueline Sáenz, Jorge Santiago Aguirre Espinosa and Luis Arriaga Valenzuela, Director of Centro Prodh signed the brief. 5 On behalf of CEJIL, Annette Martínez, Luis Diego Obando, Gisela de León, Alejandra Nuño and Viviana Krsticevic, Director of CEJIL, signed the brief. 6 On behalf of the Centro de Derechos Humanos de la Montaña “Tlachinollan”, Abel Barrera, Director of Tlachinollan, signed the brief. 7 The Court reported the statement by Judge Sergio García Ramírez about his not hearing this case “[s]ince as he h[a]s constantly stated that he consider[s] that it is not appropriate for a judge to participate if he has the same nationality as the respondent State.” 5