2 January 10, 2007, the State presented its reply, which was forwarded to the petitioner for her information. 6. On July 16, 2007, the petitioner supplied additional information and expressed her interest in seeking a friendly settlement. By a communication dated August 20, 2007, the IACHR forwarded the petitioner’s additional information to the State and informed both parties that, pursuant to Article 41(1) of its Rules of Procedure then in force, it had decided to place itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to reaching a friendly settlement in the matter. It gave the petitioner and the State one month in which to present their comments. By a communication received on November 29, 2007, the petitioner reconfirmed her interest in seeking a friendly settlement. She also supplied additional information, which was forwarded to the State for comment. 7. On September 24, 2009, the petitioner again expressed her interest in pursuing a friendly settlement and supplied additional information, which was forwarded to the State for its observations. On December 2, 2009, the State requested an extension on the deadline for filing its response, which the Commission granted. On December 3, 2010 and June 15, 2011, briefs were received from the petitioner containing her comments, which were forwarded to the State for its observations. II. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. The petitioner 8. The petitioner alleges that her daughter, Mrs. Balbina Rodríguez, who was 32 at the time of the events in this petition and a practicing surgeon, was allegedly the victim of three episodes of medical malpractice at the La Concepción Maternal Infant Polyclinic, C.A. 2 She states that the first of these episodes was a cesarean section done on August 13, 1998, during which complications arose because “the placenta did not expel spontaneously” and the physicians proceeded to extract it by “pulling on it, broken and in pieces,” which caused “heavy hemorrhaging.” Her daughter was in “agonizing pain.” The petitioner states that the second episode of malpractice occurred that same day, in the afternoon, when the physicians did a “partial hysterectomy,” after which her daughter was taken to the Intensive Care Unit in “very grave condition” as she was “hemorrhaging internally […] both ureters were ligated and perforated.” This necessitated a third operation in the early morning hours of August 14, in which a “resection of the uterine neck was done […] both ureters were deligated, a urethrotomy was performed by inserting urethral stents, and both hypogastric arteries were ligated.” 9. The petitioner alleges that the third episode of malpractice was on August 19, 1998, when the urethral stents that had been inserted were removed, before the “damaged urethal tissue had time to heal.” The petitioner states further that, as a consequence of this last episode, Mrs. Balbina had to undergo a fourth operation on August 20, 1998, to insert new urethral stents. However, the urethral tissue “did not completely regenerate itself,” necessitating a fifth operation on February 8, 1999, as a result of the “aplasia.” During that fifth operation, the ureters were reconstructed, a renal fistula was closed and the bladder was attached to the psoas muscle for the left leg. 10. The petitioner alleges that the episodes described above had permanent consequences for her daughter’s daily life. A number of surgeries were needed, as was constant 2 The petitioner asserts that these episodes are criminalized as “criminal negligence resulting in grievous personal injury,” as provided in Article 422, paragraph 2, in connection with Article 416 of the Venezuelan Penal Code.