2 recognized in Article 1(1) of the above treaty, to the detriment of the 17 people who were killed, the 27 persons who were wounded, and their next of kin. The Commission also stated that it does not have sufficient evidence to establish a violation of the obligation contained in Article 2 of the Convention. II. PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION 4. After it received the initial complaint, the Commission decided to open it as petition 289-02 and begin its processing. On March 6, 2003, after processing the petition for admissibility, the Commission adopted Report 25/03, 6 in which it declared that the petition was admissible with respect to the alleged violations of the rights to life, humane treatment, a fair trial, private property, the rights of the child, and the right to judicial protection recognized in Articles 4, 5, 8, 19, 21, and 25 of the American Convention taken in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 of said treaty. On March 11, 2003, the Commission forwarded the report on admissibility to the parties and gave the petitioners two months in which to submit their arguments on merits. In the same communication, the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to reaching a friendly settlement of the matter, for which purpose it requested them to state their interest in that regard at their earliest convenience. 5. On May 9, 2003, the petitioners requested an extension, which was granted by the IACHR. On October 28, 2003, the Commission received the petitioners' comments on merits, which it relayed to the State and gave it two months to present its response. The State requested extensions on January 6, February 13, March 25, and June 4, 2004; these were granted by the IACHR. On January 24, 2005, the petitioners filed a brief containing additional information, which was forwarded to the State for comment together with a reiteration of the request for its response to the petitioners’ observations on merits. On February 10, 2005, the State sent a communication in which it requested that the petitioners brief be forwarded in the official language (Spanish). That communication was conveyed to the petitioners for comment. 6. On September 13, 2005, the Commission requested the petitioners and the State for updated information on the matter in reference. On December 27, 2005, the State presented its observations on merits, which were transmitted to the petitioners for comment. On February 22, 2006, the State presented additional information, which was relayed to the petitioners for comment. On April 5 and May 12, 2006, the petitioners requested extensions, which the Commission granted. On August 15, 2006, the petitioners presented their observations which were transmitted to the State for comment. On September 20, 2006, the State requested an extension, which was granted by the IACHR. 7. On December 14, 2006, the State presented its comments. On February 6, 2009, Alejandro Álvarez Pabón, the attorney of the alleged victims and their next of kin in the contentious administrative proceedings at the domestic level, submitted information on the matter in hand, which was relayed to the petitioners and the State. On May 4, 2010, the Commission transmitted to the petitioners for comment a brief received from the State. On June 4, 2010, the petitioners presented their response, which was conveyed to the State for comment. On July 21, 2010, the State requested an extension, which was granted by the Commission. On October 5, 2010, the State presented its comments, which were conveyed to the petitioners for consideration. 6 IACHR, Report No. 25/03, Petition 289-02, Admissibility, Santo Domingo, Colombia, March 6, 2003.