Andrade. The State’s response was forwarded to the petitioners who, on July 31, 2003, supplied additional information. 7. On December 1, 2003, the petitioners asked that pursuant to Article 41 of the American Convention, the Commission set a new day and time for a working meeting to explore the possibility of a friendly settlement. That communication was forwarded to the State on December 22, 2003. The petitioners sent more information on January 20 and 30, 2004, which was forwarded to the State. In the second of these communications, they requested a hearing. On February 10, 2004 the IACHR advised the petitioners that it was unable to accede to their request. On February 19, 2004, the State expressed its interest in instituting a friendly settlement proceeding. On June 16, 2004, the State sent additional observations, which were forwarded to the petitioners on June 18, 2004. On September 24, 2004, the petitioners supplied additional information, which was forwarded to the State on September 29, 2004 and October 6, 2004. 8. On January 26, 2005, the Commission received a communication from the petitioners enclosing a “Conciliatory Agreement” with the State of Bolivia. On April 7, 2005, the petitioners told the Commission that they wanted to continue to pursue action on the petition inasmuch as Bolivia had failed to abide by the “Conciliatory Agreement.” That same day, the Commission requested the State to present its observations within one month’s time. On May 13 and August 3, 2005, the petitioners again made the point that the State had failed to honor the “Conciliatory Agreement.” On June 1, 2005, the IACHR asked the State to supply the pertinent information. On August 10 and October 25, 2005, the State reported that it had fully complied with the “Conciliatory Agreement.” That information was forwarded to the petitioners. 9. On October 26, 2005, during the Commission’s 123rd session, Bolivia and the petitioners signed a Commitment intended to spur compliance with the “Conciliatory Agreement”. A decision was also taken to hold another meeting, which took place at Commission headquarters on November 28 of that year. There, the petitioners asked the Commission to continue with the processing of the petition, with the understanding that should either party so request, the Commission could again place itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to reaching a friendly settlement. 10. On May 1 and September 12, 2006, the petitioners filed additional information and requested a hearing. On June 28, July 25 and September 14, 2006, the State presented additional observations. 11. The petitioners and the State held a working meeting in La Paz on November 16, 2006, during a visit by a Commission delegation to Bolivia. On December 18, 2006, the petitioners forwarded a proposed friendly settlement that was sent to the State on December 26 of that year. On April 13, 2007, the State asked the Commission to send it a copy of a document that references a payment that the Bolivian State made to Mrs. Andrade. On June 19, 2007, the Commission informed the State of the only document in the case file that fit that description. On November 13, 2007, the petitioners withdrew from the friendly settlement proceeding and asked the Commission to draw up its final report on the case. On November 27, 2007, the Commission told the parties that its role in the friendly settlement proceeding was at an end and that it would continue to process the petition. 12. On June 17, 2008, the State sent the Commission another report on the case, which was forwarded to the petitioners on June 25, 2008. On December 4, 2008, the Commission requested that the petitioners advise it of the status of the criminal cases. III. THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS A. The petitioners 13. The petitioners observe that Mrs. Andrade served as Chair of the La Paz City Council from January 1998 to June 1999 and was elected mayor of the city on June 7, 1999. She held that post until February 6, 2000. The petitioners note that during her term as mayor, Mrs. Andrade 2