make additional observations on the merits. The Commission also made itself available to the parties in order to reach a friendly settlement in the case, in accordance with Article 48.1.f of the American Convention. 7. On March 24, 2011, the petitioners submitted their additional observations on the merits to the IACHR. On April 7, 2011, the IACHR forwarded those observations to the State and granted it three months to present its respective observations on the merits of the case. On July 5, 2011, the State requested a one-month extension of the deadline to submit its report, which was granted and set for July 30, 2011. The State’s reply was received on August 2, 2011. 8. In a communication dated August 31, 2011, the IACHR forwarded the State’s brief to the petitioners and gave them one month to present the observations they deemed pertinent. On September 30, 2011, the petitioners submitted their observations to the State’s reply, which were forwarded to the State on February 6, 2012. On April 13, 2012, the IACHR received an additional report from the State, submitted in response to the additional observations of the petitioners. That communication was duly forwarded to the petitioners on July 20, 2012. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. Position of the petitioners 9. The petitioners stated that Mr. Lagos del Campo had been working since July 12, 1976 as an operator electrician in the maintenance department of a transnational manufacturing company in Peru. They stated that Mr. Lagos del Campo held a number of officer positions within the Workers Union, including secretary of defense for two terms (1983-1984 and 1985-1986), and secretary general (1983-1984). He was also president of the Electoral Committee of the company’s ¨Industrial Community¨ for two terms: 1984-1985, and 1988-1989. 10. The petitioners explained that the ¨Industrial Community¨ is a form of business organization created in Peru through Decree Law No. 18350, the “Industries Act” of July 27, 1976. According to the information provided by the petitioners, the Industrial Community is a private legal entity formed and represented by the employees of an industrial manufacturing company, which allowed for profit-sharing, as well as the co-management and co-ownership of the business. The workers hold elections to choose their representatives to the bodies in charge of the leadership and management of the community—in other words, the General Assembly of Joint Owners or the Industrial Community Board. 11. According to the petitioners, the operation of the industrial communities gave rise to disputes within companies, and “it was not unusual for employers to use tactics to block the community’s access to the company’s capital stock.” The petitioners stated that “the management of the community, expressed in the election of the workers’ representatives to the Industrial Community Board, became a source of increased conflict among the workers, as well as between employees and company management.” 12. The petitioners stated that Peru experienced an economic crisis in 1988 and 1989, which led to a worsening of labor conditions characterized by “mass layoffs and dismissals of unionized workers, their replacement by temporary workers, and the systematic reduction of real wages.” On this issue, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) considered that “The role of the State as the arbiter of labor dispute was deplorable. An inefficient bureaucracy and a propensity for corruption, the absence of clear rules, cumbersome laws, and other problems not only hindered negotiations but also made it so that the actions of the State became an aggravating factor in the dispute.” 13. The petitioners asserted that incidents took place during 1989 relating to the election of members of the company’s Industrial Community Board of Directors. On April 26, 1989, as president of the electoral committee, Mr. Lagos del Campo addressed a communication to the Participation Office of the Ministry of Industry, complaining of irregularities on the part of other members of the Electoral Committee, who represented the employers. In his complaint, the alleged victim stated that those members of the Electoral Committee announced elections for April 28, 1989, without the participation of the workers’ 2