2 5. After analyzing the position of the parties, the Inter-American Commission concluded that the Dominican State was responsible for the violation of the right to life, to personal integrity, to personal liberty, to non discrimination, to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, enshrined in Articles 4, 5, 7, 24, 8 and 25 of the American Convention in connection to the obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument, to the detriment of the persons listed throughout this report. II. PROCESSING BEFORE THE IACHR 6. On November 28, 2005, the Repatriated and Refugee Support Group and the DominicanHaitian Cultural Center lodged the initial petition. The processing of the petition from the date it was lodged until the decision on admissibility was made is explained in detail on the Admissibility Report 1 issued on December 22, 2008. 7. On January 27, 2009, the Commission notified the parties of the above mentioned report and, based on the provisions of Article 38.1 of the Rules of Procedure then in force, granted the petitioners a period of two months to submit additional observations on the merits, and, based on the provisions of Article 38.4 of the same Rules of Procedure, placed itself at the parties disposal in order to reach a friendly settlement. 8. On March 27, 2009, the petitioners requested a two-month extension to submit their observations which the Commission granted setting a deadline of May 5, 2009. 9. On April 24, 2009, the State requested an extension to submit observations to the Admissibility Report. On April 29, 2009, the Commission informed the State that once the petitioners submitted their observations they would be forwarded to the State in order that it may submit its observations. 10. On May 5, 2009, the petitioners submitted their observations on the merits which were forwarded to the State on June 22, 2009, and requesting that the State submit its observations within a period of two months. On August 6 and 10, 2009, the State submitted its observations to the petitioner’s document. On August 17, 2009, the relevant parts were forwarded to the petitioners who were asked to submit their observations within a month. The parties did not address the offer of a friendly settlement. 11. On September 11, 2009, the petitioners requested a two-month extension to submit their observations which the Commission granted starting on October 15, 2009. On December 10, 2009, the petitioners submitted their observations to the State’s document and submitted additional observations on the merits. The relevant parts of those observations were forwarded to the State on January 25, 2010, requesting that the State submit any observations it deemed appropriate within a month. 12. On February 22, 2010, the State requested a one-month extension which the Commission granted on March 24, 2010. On April 27, 2010, the State requested an additional extension which was granted on May 27, 2010. 13. On May 28, 2010, the State submitted its observations whose relevant parts were forwarded to the petitioners on August 17, 2010, requesting that they submit their observations within a month. 14. On August 17, 2010, the IACHR requested that the parties submit specific information on the case regarding judicial proceedings and the victims’ relatives within a period of one month. On September 20 and 21, 2010, the State and the representatives submitted some of the information requested by the Commission. On September 22, 2010, the Commission forwarded those documents to the respective parties granting them a period of one month to submit any observation they deemed relevant. 1 IACHR, Report No. 95/08 (admissibility), Petition 1351/05, Nadege Dorzema et al. or “the Guayubín Massacre”, Dominican Republic, March 5, 2008.