2 June 26, 2006, the Commission informed both parties that petition P-425-06 (Eduardo José Landaeta Mejías) had been joined with P-908-04 (Igmar Alexander Landaeta Mejías). On January 30, 2007, the Commission wrote to the parties to inform them that, given the particular circumstances of either petition, it had decided to analyze them separately in determining their compliance with the admissibility requirements. 5. On March 9, 2007, the Commission adopted report on admissibility No. 23/07 with respect to petition P-425-06, which was assigned case number 12.606. The parties were notified of the report on admissibility on March 26, 2007. 6. That same day, pursuant to Article 38(1) of its then-in-force Rules of Procedure, the Commission granted the petitioners two months to submit their additional observations on merits. On May 25, 2007, the petitioners requested an extension. On 12 June 2007, the Commission granted that extension. On July 18, 2007, the petitioners presented their observations on the merits. On July 30, 2007, pursuant to Article 38(1) of its Rules of Procedure, the Commission relayed the petitioners’ observations to the State and requested that it submits its additional observations on merits within two months. On September 21, 2007, the State requested an extension. That extension was granted on October 10, 2007. On February 13, 2008, the Commission received a communication from the petitioners requesting that it apply Article 39 of its Rules of Procedure and adopt a report on merits in the matter. 7. On March 12, 2008, the Commission received a communication from the State presenting its observations on merits in the case. This communication was transmitted to the petitioners on March 18, 2008, and they were given one month to submit their comments. On May 6, 2008, the Commission received a communication from the petitioners enclosing their comments on the State’s brief and reiterating their request that a report on merits be issued. This communication was forwarded to the State on May 14, 2008 with the request that it submit such observations as it deemed appropriate within one month On June 12, 2008, the Commission received a communication from the petitioners to which they attached parts of the judicial record that they had transcribed. On June 25, 2008, the Commission transmitted this information to the State. 8. On March 22, 2009, the Commission adopted report on admissibility No. 22/09 in connection with petition P-908-04. In operative paragraph 2 of that report on admissibility, the 2 Commission decided “[t]o consider the petition jointly with case 12.606.” This joinder was done in accordance with Article 29(1) of the Rules of Procedure then in force. The parties were notified of the report on admissibility and the joinder on April 1, 2009. In that same note, the Commission requested the petitioners to present any additional observations on merits that they might have within two months. 9. The petitioners requested an extension on June 1, 2009. That extension was granted on June 4, 2009 The additional observations on merits were received and relayed to the State on August 14, 2009, which was given two months to submit the relevant observations. The State submitted its observations on merits on November 25, 2009. The Commission transmitted the observations of the State to the petitioners on December 3, 2009. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. The Petitioners 10. By way of context, the petitioners mention that one of the main causes of violation of the right to life in Venezuela is the practice of illegal and arbitrary arrests, followed by extrajudicial execution and excessive and indiscriminate use of force attributable to regional police forces. They say that there is a stock pattern in violent killings through "ajusticiamiento" [vigilante-style murders], in that they are carried 2 IACHR, Report No. 22/09 (admissibility), Petition 908-04, Igmar Alexander Landaeta Mejías, Venezuela, March 20, 2009, operative paragraph 2. Available at: http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2009sp/Venezuela908-04.sp.htm.