3 applicant and the lack of response by the State. The report was notified to the applicant and the State on October 25, 2002. 8. On May 8, 2003, the Commission held itself available to the parties in order to try and reach a friendly settlement. 9. On October 17, 2003, the applicant requested the Commission to allow the Centro por la Justicia Global to stand as co-applicant in the instant case (hereinafter, “the applicants”). 10. On October 8, 2003, during its 118th Regular Session, the Commission approved Report on the Merits 43/03, whereby it concluded, inter alia, that the State violated the rights embodied in Articles 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 4 (Right to Life), 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) and 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, for the inhuman and degrading hospitalization conditions of Damião Ximenes-Lopes, for the violation of the right to humane treatment and his murder; and for breach of the duty to investigate, the violation of the right to access to effective remedies and judicial guarantees associated with the investigation of the events. The Commission recommended that the State should adopt a series of measures aimed at redressing the abovementioned violations. 11. On December 31, 2003, the Inter-American Commission notified Report on the Merits 43/03 to the State granting two months to notify the Commission on the measures adopted in compliance with the recommendations. That same day, the Commission notified the applicants that the report had been approved and delivered to the State and requested them to notify the Commission of their position regarding the submission of the case to the Inter-American Court. 12. On March 8, 2004, the Commission received a brief from the applicants stating that “it was of utmost importance that the case be submitted to the InterAmerican Court[...] since the State, despite the few and sporadic measures adopted in the case, failed to comply with the three recommendations made by the Commission in the report served on the State on December 31, 2003.” 13. On March 17 and June 18, 2004, the State requested the Commission to grant time extensions “to implement the recommendations” made on Report on the Merits No. 43/03. Said time extensions were granted. On both occasions, the State expressly and irrevocably acknowledged that the time extensions suspended the term set forth in Article 51(1) of the Convention to submit the case to the Court. 14. On September 23, 2004, the State filed a partial report on the implementation of the recommendations made by the Commission and on September 29, twelve days after the expiration of the term, the State filed another brief containing an answer to the Report on the Merits issued by the Commission. 15. On September 30, 2004, the Commission decided to submit the instant case to the Court. IV Proceeding before the Court