II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE IACHR SUBSEQUENT TO THE ADMISSIBILITY REPORT 6. On February 25, 2005, the IACHR issued Admissibility Report No. 22/05.2The parties were served a copy of this report on March 16, 2005, as provided by Article 38.1 of the Rules of Procedure in effect at the time for the Commission. Additionally, in accordance with Article 48.1.f of the Convention and Article 38.2 of IACHR Rules of Procedure, it placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to reaching a friendly settlement in the matter. 7. In a submission of March 29, 2005, the petitioners provided information. Likewise, on April 11, 2005, the State reported that it was willing to enter into a friendly settlement agreement. The IACHR forwarded the offer to the petitioners and asked them to report back as to whether they were interested in engaging in said process. In a communication of May 10, 2005, the petitioners voiced their consent and submitted a draft agreement. The IACHR forwarded the information it received to the State for its reply. 8. On July 6 and 14, 2005, communications were received from Mr. Edgar Ortiz containing information on the case and on attempts to reach a friendly settlement. Said communications were forewarded to the State for its response. On July 28, 2005, the State requested an extension to submit its response, which was granted and on August 24 of that year, the State announced its decision towithdraw from the friendly settlement process. This communication was forwarded to the petitioner for its observations. On October 19 and November 14, 2005, the petitioner submitted information on efforts to reach a friendly settlement, which was forwarded to the State. 9. On February 25 and March 9, 2006, Mr. Edgar Ortiz and Mrs. Zaida Hernández,respectively, submitted briefs regarding their positions on the friendly settlement process. On March 16, 2006, the petitioner submitted information on the criminal proceeding. These communications were forwarded to the State. On July 18, 2006, the State responded to the positions of the petitioners; the IACHR forwarded that information and requested comment. 10. On September 19 and 21, 2006, communications were received on the friendly settlement process from Mrs. Zaida Hernández and Mr. Edgar Ortiz, respectively, which were forwarded to the State for its reply. On October 20, and November 1 and 6, 2006, information was received from both petitioners regarding the friendly settlement process, including a draft agreement proposal. The IACHR forwarded the information to the State for it to submit a reply. 11. On March 5 and July 26, 2007 and January 20 and 21, 2008, the petitioners reported that there had been no progress in reaching a friendly settlement. The IACHR forwarded the communication to the State and requested a reply. On February 26, 2008, the petitioners submitted their arguments on the violation of the rights protected under the Convention. In a communication of April 2, 2008, the IACHR advised the parties that, in view of the petitioners’ comments and in keeping with Article 41.4 and 41.6 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, it deemed its involvement in the friendly settlement process as concluded and was proceeding to process the case. 12. On August 11, 2008, the Commission received additional comments from the State regarding the friendly settlement process and information on the criminal case, which was forwarded to the petitioners for their reply. On October 15, 2008, the petitioners’ response was received and was forwarded to the State. 13. In a communication of May 5, 2009, the IACHR gave the petitioners a period of two months to submit additional observations on the merits, as provided for under Article 38.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission. The petitioners submitted their observations on July 6, 2009, which were forwarded to the State for its response within the two-month time period, as provided by the rules. 2 IACHR, Report No. 22/05 (Admissibility), Case 12.270, Johan Alexis Ortiz Hernández, Venezuela, February 25, 2005.