8. On April 27, 2011, the IACHR forwarded a copy of the pertinent portions to the State and gave it two months to submit observations, in accordance with Article 30(3) of its Rules of Procedure then in force. On July 7, 2011, the Commission granted an extension at the request of the State. On December 6, 2012, the IACHR sent the State additional information and requested its to present its observations within one month. On August 6, 2013, the Commission reiterated the request for observations to the State. The IACHR received the response of the State on May 5, 2014, and forwarded it to the petitioners on June 18, 2014. 9. On October 9, 2015, the Executive Secretariat of the IACHR advised the parties of its decision to separate the petitions that were not connected with the alleged victim Juan Luis Rivera Matus, in accordance with Article 29(4) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, and registered the complaint received on March 3, 2008, and the ensuing complaints related thereto as petition P-1566-08, while keeping the matters linked to Mr. Rivera under petition P-1275-04. The reason for the foregoing was that the original petition filed on behalf of Mr. Juan Luis Rivera concerned facts relating to civil reparations. Therefore, the petitions received on November 26, 2004 (concerning reparations in a civil suit) and on January 28, 2008 (related to the application of a partial lapse in the statutory time period in criminal proceedings), both on behalf of Mr. Rivera, were joined. Consequently, the petitions filed subsequently by AFDD that exclusively concern the application of partial statutory limitations in criminal proceedings and are not related to Mr. Rivera and his family were joined under petition P-1566-08. 10. In addition, on October 9, 2015, the petitions lodged on August 16, 2010, which were also joined to petition P-1566-08, were forwarded to the State. On January 7, 2016, the State submitted a written response to the forwarded petitions, which was relayed to the petitioners on February 17, 2016. 11. On July 27, 2016, based on a request expressed by the petitioner—and answered by the State—with a view to reaching a friendly settlement, which the petitioner requested be confined exclusively to the aspect concerning the judicial declaration of extinction of action in civil proceedings relating to Mr. Rivera’s case, the Commission decided that said friendly settlement proceeding should be processed separately as petition P-1275-04 A. In addition, the Commission informed the parties that the aspects of the complaint regarding the arguments relating to criminal proceedings and the legitimacy of the application of partial statutory limitations, will be processed as petition P-1275-04 B. III. PRIOR CONSIDERATIONS 12. Bearing in mind that petition P-1275-04 B (lodged by AFDD on January 28, 2008), concerning Mr. Rivera, and the matters registered under petition P-1566-08 (received by means of a brief dated March 3, 2008, and other subsequent briefs, all presented by AFDD), have to do with the alleged application of partial statutory limitations in criminal proceedings, this report deals exclusively with those matters and excludes the matter under petition P-1275-04 A (lodged on November 26, 2004 by Mr. Brkovic), which concerns aspects of reparations in civil proceedings that are currently the subject of a friendly settlement procedure. IV. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. Position of the Petitioners Submissions in common 13. The complaints were filed as a consequence of judgments rendered by the Supreme Court, which, the petitioners claim, covertly allowed serious crimes committed against the alleged victims to go unpunished. In that regard, the petitioners allege that the rulings handed down by the Supreme Court, generally sua sponte, without prior discussion or presentations by the parties due to a series of irregularities, merely constituted the appearance of justice, when in reality an array of rights were violated that are protected by the American convention, such as the prohibition of statutory limitations, proportionality of punishment, and the right of the victims to have access to the proceedings and to know the truth of what happened to their family members. They also say that the Supreme Court, by overreaching its authority and reclassifying crimes in several cases, became a tribunal that did not meet the basic requirements of a competent and impartial court, 3