Commission placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to reaching a friendly settlement of the matter. 10. Via a communication dated April 24, 2009, the petitioners declined the IACHR’s offer to begin the friendly settlement proceeding. In a communication dated June 10, 2009, the State requested an extension. On July 2, 2009, the Commission advised the State that the Bolivian State was not, at the point in the process, facing any deadline. The petitioners presented their additional observations on the merits via a communication dated August 22, 2009. They subsequently sent still more information via communications dated March 29, 2009, and October 5, 2010. The Commission forwarded those communications to the State via communications dated September 4 and September 30, 2009 and March 9, 2011. 11. On March 29, 2011, the State presented observations, which the Commission forwarded to the petitioners on May 24, 2011. In response to the State’s request for an extension, on May 25, 2011, the Commission granted it a 30-day extension. In a communication dated April 6, 2011, the State presented observations, which the Commission forwarded to the petitioners on August 17, 2011, giving them one month in which to present observations. The petitioners submitted their observations in a communication dated September 27, 2011, which the Commission forwarded to the State on December 28, 2011. 12. In a communicated dated September 28, 2011, the IACHR asked the State and the petitioners to present, within one month’s time, updated information on the status of the proceedings in the Gader, Guaglio, Street Lamps, Mendieta, Mallasa and Esin cases and a copy of the principal case records in those proceedings. On January 30, 2012, the State asked the Commission to extend the deadline for presenting the requested information, which the Commission did in a communication dated February 3, 2012. The petitioners sent a communication dated January 31, 2012, which was forwarded to the State for observations. The Commission granted an extension to the State until February 3, 2012 to present those observations. Subsequently, the IACHR received another communication from the petitioners, this one dated February 14, 2012. That communication was brought to the State’s attention on March 6, 2012. The State presented observations on March 2, 2012, which were forwarded to the petitioners on March 9, 2012 for informational purposes. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. The petitioners 13. The petitioners stated that Ms. Andrade was a journalist, commentator and columnist with more than 20 years experience in her profession and known for her stance against corruption. The petitioners pointed out that between January 1998 and June 1999, Ms. Andrade served as President of the City Council of La Paz, and on June 7, 1999, was elected the mayor of La Paz, an office she held until February 6, 2000. 14. The petitioners also stated that during her time as Mayor of La Paz, Ms. Andrade reported corruption in the Mayor’s Office under previous administrations and that after leaving office, she was implicated in six criminal cases: Gader, Guaglio (a case of fraud involving the deviation of funds from the General Pension Fund), Mendieta, Street Lamps, Masalla and Esin. In general terms the petitioners alleged that a number of due process violations were committed in those court cases, particularly the right to a hearing within a reasonable period of time, the right to presumption of innocence, the right of defense and the right to be judged by an independent and impartial court. 15. The petitioners alleged that the charges that the prosecutors and examining judges filed were not supported by any evidence or proof showing that Ms. Andrade had any role in the criminal acts of which she was accused. The petitioners maintained that Ms. Andrade was held in pre-trial detention for more than six months, by order of a judge who ran for the office of President of Bolivia in 2002 and who waged his political campaign on the basis of the cases brought against Ms. Andrade.