3 On March 1, 2007, the IACHR sent the State the petitioners’ observations on the merits and set a deadline of two months for the State to submit its observations thereon. As of the date on which the present report was adopted, the State had not yet submitted its observations on the merits. The Commission also received information from the petitioners on November 13, 2007, which was duly forwarded to the State. The Commission received information from the State on the following dates: April 11, July 25, and November 14, 2008. Those communications were duly forwarded to the petitioners. In a communication dated July 13, 2007, the State said it would be interested in reaching a friendly settlement of the matter, a suggestion to which the petitioners agreed in a communication dated October 24, 2007. On March 11 and October 24, 2008, working meetings were held during the st rd Commission’s 131 and 133 sessions, in Washington, D.C., to pursue the friendly settlement process that the parties had embarked upon. On February 4, 2009, the petitioners advised the Commission that they had decided not to pursue the friendly settlement process and asked that the Commission continue to process the case. 9. In the case of Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia et al. (Report No. 32/07): The Commission forwarded the petitioners’ observations on the merits to the State on August 15, 2007, and gave it two months in which to submit its observations. As of the date of this report, the State has not yet submitted its observations on the merits. The IACHR received information from the petitioners on the following dates: February 11 and 25, July 28, August 19, and December 1, 2008. Those communications were duly forwarded to the State. The Commission received communications from the State on the following dates: July 12, September 18, November 6 and 14, and December 8, 2008. The State’s communications were then forwarded to the petitioners. In a communication dated February 14, 2008, the State expressed its interest in arriving at a friendly settlement of the matter, an offer the petitioners accepted in a communication dated February 23, 2008. On March 11 and October 24, 2008, working meetings were held during the st rd Commission’s 131 and 133 sessions, to pursue the friendly settlement process between the parties. On December 23, 2008, the petitioners informed the Commission that they had decided not to pursue the friendly settlement process and requested that the processing of the case continue. On November 15, 2007, the petitioners asked the Commission to adopt precautionary measures to avoid irreparable harm to the life and health of Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles, and Mr. José Huenchunao Marillan, Mr. Jaime Marileo Saravia, and two other persons deprived of liberty and of Mapuche origin: Mr. Héctor Llaitul Catrillanca and Mr. Juan Millalén Mila, who had been on a hunger strike since October 10, 2007, at the Angol Penitentiary (Region IX). The purpose of the hunger strike was to demand that a number of measures be taken immediately to improve the situation of the Mapuche persons deprived of liberty, including an effort to find legal ways to obtain 5 their release. On December 20, 2007, the applicants seeking the precautionary measures informed the Commission that the only person still on a hunger strike was Mrs. Patricia Troncoso. By a communication dated January 3, 2008, the Commission requested information from the State and from the petitioners. Each party’s reply was forwarded to the other party. Finally, on January 30, 2008, the Commission was informed that Mrs. Patricia Troncoso had ended her hunger strike. 10. In the case of Victor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe (Report No. 33/07): 5 The applicants seeking the precautionary measure asked that the following measures be adopted: “1) that an order be given that the comuneros are to be visited on a daily basis by a medical professional, who will check on their health and keep their families informed of their health status; 2) that a means of dialogue be established with the Mapuche comuneros who are on hunger strike, safeguarded by a guarantor; 3) that any time that the comuneros have spent in incarceration be counted toward their final sentences; 4) that any Mapuche comuneros who meet the established requirements be given access to prison privileges; 5) that a technical team be established, composed of State and independent professionals whom the beneficiaries trust, to undertake… a study of some legal alternative that makes possible .. a solution to their unjust incarceration …”