2 Ricardo Pacheco Tineo. The Commission also finds that the State of Bolivia is responsible for the violation of Article 19 of the American Convention regarding the obligation to provide special protection to children, taken in conjunction with Article 1(1) of that instrument. The Commission also concludes that it is unnecessary to rule on the alleged violation of the rights of the family enshrined in Article 17 of the American Convention. Finally, by virtue of the principle of subsidiarity, the Comission did not make any finding regarding the right to personal liberty enshrined in Article 7 of the American Convention with respect to Fredesvinda Tineo Godos. The Commission finally concludes that the State of Bolivia did not violate the right to respect for physical integrity recognized in Article 5 of the American Convention, to the detriment of the Pacheco Tineo family. II. PROCESSING BY THE IACHR 5. The IACHR took receipt of the initial petition on April 25, 2002. The proceedings from the lodging of the petition until the decision on admissibility are explained in detail in the report on 3 admissibility issued on October 13, 2004. 6. On November 3, 2004, the Commission notified the parties of the above report, informed them that the petition had been registered as case number 12.474 and, under article 38.1 of the Rules of Procedure then in force, set a deadline of two months for the petitioners to submit additional observations on merits. Furthermore, pursuant to article 48(1)(f) of the American Convention, the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to reaching a friendly settlement of the matter. 7. The Commission received the response of the state to the petition on December 23, 4 2004. The IACHR forwarded this response to the petitioners on April 13, 2005 and gave them one month in which to submit comments. A communication was received from the petitioners on June 27, 2005. This brief was relayed to the state on July 5, 2005, together with a request that it comment within one month. 8. In a communication dated December 18, 2006, the Commission requested additional information from the state, as well as from the petitioners, in order to have access to all the necessary elements to offer an opinion on the merits of the case. 9. The petitioners responded to the request for information from the IACHR on January 5, 2009. This brief was forwarded to the state in a communication dated February 20, 2007, with the request that it submit comments within one month. 10. The Commission reiterated the request for information to the state on May 21, 2007. The Commission requested the petitioners for additional information on November 26, 2007. On April 30 and June 12, 2008, the Commission asked the state to furnish the information requested as soon as possible. 11. The IACHR received a communication from the state on July 9, 2008, and forwarded it to the petitioners on August 20, 2008, giving them one month to comment. 12. Additional information was received from the petitioners on September 22, 2008 and June 2, 2009. The IACHR received additional information from the state on March 25, 2009. These communications were duly relayed to the parties. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. The Petitioners 3 IACHR, Report No. 53/04 (Admissibility), Petition 301-02, Rumaldo Juan Pacheco Osco, Frida Pacheco Tineo, Juana Guadalupe Pacheco Tineo, and Juan Ricardo Pacheco Tineo, Bolivia, October 13, 2004, pars. 5 and 6. 4 As noted in the section on processing in the report on admissibility, the state did not respond to the petition in that stage.