2 requested an extension from the IACHR. The State’s response to the petition was received on June 14, 2004, and it was forwarded to the petitioners on September 2, 2004. 6. The petitioners submitted additional information on December 8, 2004, which was forwarded to the State on February 3, 2005, granting it one month to submit its observations. Subsequently, on September 17, 2008, the Commission reiterated to the State its request for observations regarding the petitioners’ communication. 7. The State’s response was received on August 11, 2009 and it was forwarded to the petitioners on September 17, 2009. A response was received from the petitioners on November 17, 2009, and it was forwarded to the State on August 25, 2010, granting it one month to submit its observations. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. Position of the petitioners 8. The petitioners claim that following an agreement signed between the Province of Neuquén and the Ministry of Justice of the Nation, many of the convicts from that provincial jurisdiction are sent to carry out their sentence in prisons of the federal penitentiary system. They maintain that although most of the inmates are housed in Unit No. 9 of the Federal Penitentiary Service, in the city of Neuquén, others have been transferred to other federal penitentiary system units in regions that are very far from the Province of Neuquén and therefore, also far from their next of kin and friends, as well as from their sentence enforcement judge [juez de ejecución de sentencia]. For instance, the Unit No. 6 of Rawson, in the Province of Chubut (approximately 800 km from the Province of Neuquén) and Unit No. 1 in the Federal Capital (at a distance of 1200 km). 9. The petitioners argue that these transfers to distant zones have entailed for the inmates unlawful suffering beyond that which comes with imprisonment itself. They note that it is impossible for the inmates to receive visits from their next of kin and close friends, who for the most part lack the economic resources to travel to distant places; this is a violation of the rights of the family, provided for by article 17 of the Convention, as it undermines their capacity to maintain family ties. Moreover, it infringes the principle that punishment shall not be extended to any person other than the criminal, established by article 5.3 of the Convention, since the next of kin of the inmates are not able to visit them. The petitioners claim that these transfers are “disguised punishments” of the convicts and that they clearly qualify as a form of cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment according to the provisions of article 5.2 of the Convention. 10. In addition, they argue that the transfers of the prisoners who are Neuquén natives outside of their province also violates the principle that punishments consisting of deprivation of liberty shall have as an essential aim the reform and social re-adaptation of the prisoners (article 5.6 of the Convention), as these transfers remove them completely from their next of kin, their legal counsel, and their enforcement judges. 11. According to the petitioners, the removal of convicts to zones that are distant from their provincial jurisdiction also constitutes an impediment to effective assistance by their legal counsel their criminal sentences are being carried out, and places them in a situation of abandonment regarding the enforcement judges with jurisdiction to exercise judicial control over the aforementioned execution of their sentences. 12. The facts object of the complaint, they argue, infringe various constitutional and legal norms at both the federal and state levels, and in particular article 41 of the Constitution of Neuquén which provides that: “In no case will convicts be sent to prisons outside the territory of the Province,” which is relevant in the instant case if it is interpreted in concordance with article 29 of the Convention. 13. With respect to the specific situation of the alleged victims (all convicted in the jurisdiction of Neuquén), the petitioners state the following: