2 December 22, 2009 the Commission received a brief containing the petitioners’ observation, which it forwarded to the State for its observations. On February 12, 2009 the State asked for an extension, which was granted by the Commission. On April 7, 2010 the State submitted its observations, which were forwarded to the petitioners for their information. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. The petitioners 7. The petitioners allege that the courts allowed and participated in abuse and denial of justice in a private contractual dispute to the detriment of the Argentine soccer player Juan José Meza. They allege that on November 19, 1991 Juan José Meza filed a labor complaint for unjustified dismissal against the Club Sport Emelec. The complaint worked its way through multiple levels of judicial consideration, and on April 24, 1996 the First Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Guayaquil issued a decision in Juan José Meza's favor. The decision ordered payment of both the bonus established in the labor contract and the unpaid compensation with a triple surcharge. 8. The petitioners indicate that after the ruling of the First Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Guayaquil was handed down, the matter then entered into a prolonged process execute the judgment and calculate the amounts of the bonus and the unpaid compensation with a triple surcharge. They claim that the defendants abused the judicial process and that judicial authorities both allowed it to happen and participated directly in actions to delay and reduce the amount of the judgment, such as ordering additional expert reports allegedly not contemplated in the labor process so as to reverse an authorized expert report in the plaintiff's favor and providing opportunities for the defense to file additional submissions allegedly not contemplated in the procedure. 9. The petitioners also allege that in the evidence submitted by the respondent the signatures of the alleged victim were forged, which was demonstrated by expert testimony provided in the process by the petitioners on April 30, 1992. However, they indicate that the judicial authorities took no action in this regard. 10. They allege that the enforcement of the ruling was assigned to the Fourth Labor Court of Guayas, which appointed a settlement expert to issue a report. They state that the expert submitted the report on July 3, 1996, in which she concluded that the alleged victim was owed 27,000 dollars for the bonus and 81,000 dollars for unpaid compensation with the triple surcharge, which when added to the other items owed and settled amounted to approximately 217,000 dollars. 11. The petitioners allege that on July 22, 1996 the defense for the Club Sport Emelec submitted a brief seeking suspension of the procedure to approve the expert’s report given that its client was taking steps in the Republic of Argentina to prove the death of Juan José Meza in a traffic accident, which was denied by the alleged victim. 12. They allege that on August 19, 1996 the Fourth Court unexpectedly appointed a new expert to submit another enforcement report. They state that the expert submitted the report on August 23, 1996 in which she omitted the 27,000 dollars for the bonus and the 81,000 dollars for unpaid compensation with the triple surcharge, which added to the other items owed and settled amounted to approximately 33,000 dollars. They indicate that in a ruling dated September 20, 1996 the Fourth Court accepted and approved the enforcement report, which altered the judicial decision issued by the First Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Guayaquil. They allege that in response to this, an appeal was filed against the ruling approving the enforcement report and that