admissible with respect to the rights set out in Articles 4, 5.1, 5.2, 8.1, and 25.1 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof. 6. On June 6, 2005, the IACHR sent the parties a communication informing them that a report on admissibility had been adopted. The petitioners submitted comments on the merits on August 6 and December 2, 2005, and on September 17, 2006. In turn, the State presented comments on October 13, 2005, and February 24 and September 1, 2006. 7. By means of a communication dated September 1, 2006, the Commission made itself available to the parties to commence the friendly settlement procedure. On March 5, 2007, a working meeting convened by the IACHR was held between the petitioners and the State. At that working meeting, the petitioners submitted a written proposal for the terms of a possible friendly settlement agreement. The State submitted comments on May 7 and 18, 2007, September 12, 2007, February 14, 2008, and March 7, 2008. The petitioners submitted comments on July 20, 2007, October 31, 2007, May 28, 2008, and November 19, 2008. 8. On March 21, 2009, a second working meeting convened by the IACHR was held between the petitioners and the State. The petitioners submitted their comments on April 2, 2009, December 1, 2010, and February 24, 2011. In turn, the State submitted comments on December 10, 2010. 9. By means of a submission dated August 22, 2011, the petitioners asked the Commission to issue its report on the merits in the case, given the failure to reach a friendly settlement agreement. The State submitted replies to that communication on September 8 and November 10, 2011. On December 27, 2011, the petitioners repeated their request that the IACHR adopt its report on the merits. 10. On January 11, 2012, the Commission informed both parties that it was concluding the friendly settlement procedure. The State sent a communication on February 9, 2012. In turn, the petitioners submitted communications and comments on the merits on June 11, 2012, September 24, 2012, and February 22, 2013. On April 8, 2014, the IACHR again informed the parties that it had concluded the friendly settlement procedure and had decided to continue with its processing of the case. 11. All submissions were duly forwarded between the parties. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. Position of the Petitioners 12. The petitioners contend that the State is responsible for the murder of the ecological activist Carlos Escaleras Mejía on October 18, 1997, as well as for the failure to conduct an investigation for elucidating the incident and punishing those responsible for the killing. 13. They state that Mr. Escaleras Mejía’s murder took place in a context of threats, persecution, and killings of ecologists and environmentalists, as occurred in the cases of Blanca Jeannette Kawas and Carlos Luna, of which the agencies of the inter-American system are already aware. They claim that those acts of violence are the work of “powerful landowners and business owners,” which has been tolerated by the State. 14. They contend that the struggle of activists and ecologists, which frequently involves the right to a healthy environment of poor communities and indigenous and campesino sectors, is seen as a serious obstacle to business projects that see such areas as fruitful locations for the pursuit of highly profitable activities. They state that the context of violence faced by those people has become so widespread that various human rights bodies and international organizations, including several agencies of the United Nations, have expressed their concern in connection with the phenomenon. 15. The petitioners claim that the State is internationally responsible for the violation of Carlos Escaleras Mejía’s right to life. They report that prior to his homicide, Mr. Escaleras and his family received 2