sent on September 28, November 13, and December 20, the petitioners specified their allegation and identified the alleged victims in the case. The State submitted its comments on the information provided by the petitioners via communications received in the Executive Secretariat on October 31 and December 30, 1996. 6. The parties continued to exchange comments on issues of admissibility via the IACHR during 1997 and 1998. On May 27, 1999, the 85 alleged victims informed the IACHR of their wish to be considered petitioners in the case and stated that they would be jointly represented by Carolina Loaiza Tamayo. In this same communication, the petitioners also requested that the IACHR avail itself to the parties to start the process for a possible friendly settlement. On September 21, 1999, the IACHR sent the State the information received, requesting a response within no more than 30 days. On October 27 and November 15, 1999, the State submitted additional information, which was subsequently sent to the petitioners. The petitioners submitted their comments via a note on January 28, 2000. On July 19, 2000, the State submitted a new report with comments. 7. On January 19, 2001, the petitioners requested that the IACHR invite the parties to an audience to discuss a possible friendly settlement. On February 6, 2001, the IACHR informed the petitioners that because of the high number of requests, it could not grant the audience during its following period of sessions. On August 18, 2002, the petitioners requested that the IACHR render a decision on the admissibility of the case and avail itself to the parties in order to seek a friendly settlement. On October 14, 2002, the IACHR held a working meeting with the parties to discuss their positions with regard to a possible friendly settlement agreement. 8. On March 4, 2003 and April 23, 2003, the petitioners submitted additional comments, which were then transferred. On June 5, 2003, the State submitted its position with regard to the petitioners’ comments. On December 2, 2003, the State requested a delay until the “special program for accessing benefits” published lists of dismissed workers before continuing discussion on a friendly settlement. On February 20, 2004, the petitioners submitted a proposal for an agreement on a friendly settlement for discussion. On October 26, 2004, a meeting was held among the parties at the Commission’s headquarters in order to discuss a possible friendly settlement agreement. On February 1, 2005, the State sent information regarding actions carried out within the framework of the possible friendly settlement agreement. On March 18, 2005, the IACHR sent the parties a communication, detailing the commitments undertaken by the parties during the working meeting. 9. On May 19, June 15, and August 15, 2005, the petitioners sent communications to the Commission, complaining about the State’s lack of celerity in the friendly settlement process. On September 8, 2005, the State submitted a report answering the comments made by the petitioners. On October 19, 2005, a working meeting was held at the Commission’s headquarters. On November 4, 2005, the IACHR sent the parties a communication in which it once again recorded the commitments undertaken by the parties during the working meeting. 10. On February 10, 2006, the petitioners informed the Commission of the death of one of the alleged victims. On January 12, 2006, the petitioners’ representative informed the Commission that eight of the alleged victims disagreed with the way in which they were being represented before the IACHR, and therefore, 3