the parties of its decision, to make it public and to include it in its Annual Report to the General Assembly of the Organization of American States (OAS). II. PROCESSING WITH THE COMMISSION 5. The petition is dated November 13, 2003 and was received at the IACHR on November 14, 2003. The petitioner sent additional information on May 24, 2004, April 17, 2005, and May 5, 2005. The pertinent parts of the petition were forwarded to the State on June 24, 2005, which was given a two-month time period in which to present its observations. 6. The State sent its observations to the Commission on September 27, 2005, after having requested an extension which was granted by the Commission. The State’s observations were duly forwarded to the petitioner on November 30, 2005. 7. On February 9, 2006, the Inter-American Commission placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to reaching a friendly settlement of the matter. In view of the responses received -from the State on March 17, 2006 and from the petitioner on March 15, 2006- on August 29, 2006 the Commission decided to continue processing the petition. 8. The petitioner forwarded additional observations on December 28, 2005, November 17, 2005, January 3, 2006, May 2, 2006, July 19, 2006, July 17, 2007, April 13, 2007, October 23, 2007, November 6, 2007, July 14, 2008 and January 22, 2009. These observations were duly forwarded to the State on February 9, 2006, January 10, 2006, August 29, 2006, August 9, 2007, October 30, 2007, November 19, 2007, August 22, 2008 and January 12, 2009. Furthermore, on numerous occasions throughout the processing of his petition, the petitioner contacted the Commission to ask about its status. On November 18, 2008, the petitioner requested a hearing with the Commission in connection with his case. 9. The State sent additional observations on September 10, 2007, September 24, 2007, December 18, 2007 and October 7, 2008. These observations were duly forwarded to the petitioner on September 25, 2007, October 18, 2007, February 21, 2008, and January 8, 2009, respectively. III. A. THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS The petitioner 10. The petitioner asserts that in 2003 “the judicial branch was crushed into subjugation, the balance among the three branches of government was broken, judicial guarantees and guarantees of due process evaporated, and the independence and impartiality of the courts were lost; compounding the problem were personal and family harassment, political connivance and unlawful adjudication of seats on the bench, in violation of the independence of the judicial branch of government.” 11. The petitioner notes that the new officials in the Legislative Branch took office on July 1, 2003 and Nicanor Duarte Frutos was sworn in as President of the Republic on August 15, 2003. According to the petitioner, on the campaign trail and in the transition period leading up to his inauguration, Duarte Frutos had pledged to overhaul the judicial branch of government. The petitioner alleges that the newly elected congressmen and senators had brought pressure to bear on the President to live up to his election promise. The petitioner also states that after almost three months of negotiations, the political parties and the President allegedly agreed to remove six justices on the Supreme Court by means of impeachment. The petitioner contends that this constituted interference, since under the