2 5, 17, 21 and 24 of the American Convention, to the prejudice of the members of the Afro-descendant communities displaced from Cararica associated in CAVIDA, and the women head of household who live in Turbo; and also in relation to Article 19, to the prejudice of their children. II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION AFTER ADMISSIBILITY REPORT No. 86/06 A. Processing of the Case 6. After completing the admissibility proceedings of petition No. 499/04, the Commission 2 declared the case admissible through the adoption of Report 86/06. In conformity with the provisions of Article 37.2 of its Rules then in force, it subsequently proceeded to register the petition No. 499/04 under case number 12.573. Report 86/06 was notified to both parties through a communication dated November 14, 2006. On that occasion, the Commission requested that the petitioners present their allegations on the merits of the case within a time limit of two months, in accordance with Article 38.1 of its Rules then in force and it placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to reaching a friendly settlement. 7. On February 6, 2007, the Commission called the parties to a hearing scheduled to take place on March 6, 2007, in the context of the IACHR's 127th Period of Sessions, in order to receive testimony. The hearing was suspended due to the fact that the witness was denied a visa to enter the United States. 8. On March 10, 2008, the petitioners presented their allegations on the merits which were sent to the State on March 18, 2008 for its observations. Due to an accidental material error, the State was granted an incorrect time limit of 30 days instead of the two months established by the Rules. On April 22, 2008, the State requested the grant of a reasonable time to present its allegations on the merits. In reply, on May 16, 2008, the IACHR requested that the State present its allegations within two months. On September 23, 2008, the State requested from the IACHR the audio recording of the testimony rendered by Bernardo Vivas on the IACHR’s visit to Colombia in 2001. 9. On February 23, 2009, the IACHR called the parties to a hearing on March 23, 2009. On February 24, 2009, the State requested the cancellation of the hearing, considering that: (i) the petitioners had 16 months since the admissibility report to present their allegations on the merits, and therefore, under the principle of procedural equality, the State should have the same time to present its position on the merits and (ii) that the petitioners allege that Bernardo Vivas (a witness to Marino López’s death) was heard by the IACHR in the context of an in loco visit to Colombia held in 2001 (before the petition’s presentation), which violates its rights to a defense and that they do not have a transcript of the said testimony. 10. On March 6, 2009, the IACHR indicated that the State had had the corresponding procedural opportunity to access the petitioners’’ allegations on the merits and would have ample opportunity to respond to them at the hearing and, if necessary, subsequently. The IACHR added that in its 2001 in loco visit it received various information on the situation of human rights in Colombia pursuant to its monitoring function, and that it did not take testimony in the framework of individual cases, and did not prepare transcripts. As a result, the information relevant to the claim was that submitted by the petitioners in the context of the individual case, and the State had the opportunity to present any relevant response. 11. On March 23, 2009, a hearing was held on the merits in the context of the IACHR’s 139th period of sessions, where the petitioners presented further written allegations, which were sent to the State on July 7, 2009, together with a petitioners' communication received on May 19, 2009 and its annex 2 21, 2006. IACHR, Report No. 86/06, Petition 499-04, Admissibility, Marino López et al. (Operation Genesis), Colombia, October