settlement of the matter. At the request of the State, this meeting was postponed to April 23, and subsequently, at the request of both parties, to May 4, the date on which it took place. 9. On March 24, 2001, Dr. Pedro Nikken requested that he be included as a petitioner in the case. 10. On March 23, 2001, the petitioners requested the Commission to refer a request for provisional measures to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, or, in the event that the Court was not in session, to submit a request for emergency measures to the President of the Court. 11. In a letter dated March 28, 2001, the Commission decided to request that the Court order provisional measures, since the precautionary measures requested by the IACHR in favor of the petitioners had not been put into effect. The President of the Court, Antonio Cançado Trindade, in a decision dated April 6, 2001, decided to give the IACHR and Costa Rica until May 12 of that year to submit information on the urgency and gravity of the situation, the probability of irreparable damage to the victims, and the possible implications of a decision to order provisional measures on the merits of the case. At the same time, it convened the parties to a hearing to be held on May 22, and it ordered the State to maintain the status quo with regard to the situation. On May 10, 2001, the Commission submitted the information requested. The Costa Rican State requested that the deadline for submitting the information requested by the Court be extended to May 16. Once the extension was granted, it submitted the pertinent information within the time limit authorized. 12. After the aforesaid hearing, the Court, by decision dated May 23, 2001, gave the Costa Rican State until August 16 to present a report on the options available under Costa Rican domestic legislation to prevent or remedy the damage in question. It further called on the State to refrain from engaging in any act that would alter the status quo. The State sent the report in question to the Court, which forwarded it to the Commission on August 17, with the instructions that the IACHR submit its comments on it by August 23. The Commission submitted its comments on August 24, 2001, within the additional time granted by the President of the Court. 13. The Secretariat of the Court then called on the State to provide additional information, which was sent on August 31, 2001. On September 1, 2001, the Commission submitted its observations on that document. On September 7, the Inter-American Court decided to authorize the provisional measures requested by the Commission, and called on Costa Rica to suspend the entry for Mauricio Herrera Ulloa in the Judicial Register of Criminal Offenders, and the order to publish the operative part of the judgment and to establish a connection between the articles and that judgment, until such time as a final decision on the case is issued by the inter-American system. 14. On April 23, 2001, Féliz Przedborski Chawa petitioned the Commission and the Court to grant his attorneys a hearing, so that they could explain why the judgment handed down against the petitioners does not violate their freedom of expression and why crimes against one’s honor and the crime of desacato [insult or injury to a public functionary] cannot be confused in Costa Rican criminal law. The Commission asked the Court to reject in limine Mr. Przedborski’s request to intervene in the case, on the grounds it was contrary to the practices and precedents of the inter-American system, among other reasons. 15. On March 30, the Commission received a document expanding the initial petition sent by the petitioners. On April 16, the Commission transmitted the pertinent parts of that document to the State and granted it 90 days to submit its response. On July 13, it granted an extension of one month to Costa Rica, which proceeded to send its response to the original petition and to the document expanding it on August 13, 2001. 16. On November 16, the IACHR conducted a hearing of the parties, at which time they gave their opinions on the admissibility of the petition. The petitioners requested that the petition be declared admissible and that the report on admissibility be issued pursuant to Article 37 of the Commission’s Regulations, while the State requested the Commission to declare the case inadmissible on the grounds that it did not have jurisdictional competence ratione personae, because domestic remedies had not been exhausted and because the acts in question were not 2