8. On April 21, 2003, in compliance with Article 30 of its Rules of Procedure, the Commission forwarded the relevant parts of the petition to the State and asked it to return its reply within the following two months. 9. On June 20, 2003, the Peruvian State sent its reply, which was conveyed to the petitioner on July 9, 2003, along with a 45-day deadline for him to submit any comments deemed relevant. 10. On July 3, 2003, the State’s reply, including annexes, was received. Those documents were forwarded to the petitioner on July 29, 2003, along with a request for him to return any relevant comments within one month. 11. On August 21, 2003, the petitioner submitted his comments on the State’s reply. 12. On September 11, 2003, the petitioner submitted additional comments. 13. On January 22 and February 23, 2004, the petitioner submitted additional information, which was conveyed to the State on April 22, 2004, along with a one-month deadline for it to submit any comments deemed relevant. 14. On June 30, 2004, the Peruvian State asked for an extension of the deadline for returning its comments; accordingly, a one-month extension was granted on July 13, 2004. 15. On August 16, 2004, the State requested a further extension, which was granted by the Commission on August 27, 2004, for an additional one-month period. 16. On January 19, 2005, the Commission repeated its request for the State to submit information. On February 24, 2005, the State requested an extension, which was granted on April 8, 2005. 17. On May 12, 2005, the State’s comments were received, and they were forwarded to the petitioner on June 1, 2005, along with a one-month deadline for him to return any comments deemed relevant. 18. On June 30, 2005, the petitioner submitted his comments, which were conveyed to the Peruvian State on September 21, 2005, with a one-month deadline for comments. 19. On October 24, 2005, the State sent its reply. 20. On May 8, 2007, the petitioner submitted information and asked the IACHR to make itself available to the parties for a possible friendly settlement. That communication was forwarded to the State on August 7, 2007, asking it to return any comments on it within the following month. 21. On September 7, 2007, the State requested an extension of the deadline; accordingly, a one-month extension was granted on September 12, 2007. 22. On May 29, 2008, the State filed a reply in which it expressed no interest in a friendly settlement. That communication was conveyed to the petitioner on June 26, 2008, along with a one-month deadline for comments. 23. On July 10, 2008, the petitioner submitted his comments, which were forwarded to the State on August 21, 2008. 2