they rejected their international representation. She indicated that these people would represent their interests directly with the IACHR.2 11. On February 8, 2006, the State submitted a detailed proposal regarding the aspects involved in seeking a friendly settlement agreement. On February 27, 2006, the petitioners drafted their comments on the State’s proposal. On March 1, 2006, the IACHR received a communication from the eight petitioners, who were representing themselves directly, in which they presented their position with regard to their expectations for the friendly settlement process and possible reparations. 12. On March 8, 2006, the IACHR held a new working meeting with the parties at its headquarters. On March 24, 2006, the petitioners submitted a proposal with a view toward a partial friendly settlement agreement with a group of 19 alleged victims. On April 5, 2006, the IACHR requested that the State submit its position with regard to the possibility of reaching a preliminary agreement with the 19 alleged victims. On June 26, 2005, the State submitted a report in which it ratified the terms of the initial proposal. On July 25, 2006, the petitioners communicated to the IACHR their intention of concluding the friendly settlement process. 13. On August 29, 2006, the IACHR informed the parties that it had concluded the friendly settlement procedure. On January 12, 2007, the petitioners requested that the Commission apply the exception pursuant to Article 37.3 of the IACHR Regulations. On April 23, 2007, the petitioners submitted additional information. On June 15, 2007, the State submitted its comments in this regard. On June 5, 2007, the petitioners requested that the IACHR hold an audience to discuss issues related to the case. On July 17, 2007, the IACHR informed the petitioners that it would not be possible to hold the requested audience. 14. On August 13, 2007, the petitioners sent the additional information, which was transferred to the State on September 4, 2007. On October 12, 2007, Ms. Loayza Tamayo submitted to the IACHR a list of the people she would be continuing to represent in the international process. 3 On October 5, 2007, the IACHR received comments from the State, which were sent to the petitioners on October 29, 2007. 15. With communications dated November 18, 2007, December 4, 2007 and January 3, 2008, the petitioners sent additional information. The pertinent parts of the information was transferred to the State with notes dated January 7 and 9, 2008. III. A. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES Position of the Petitioners 2 The petitioners representing themselves directly are: Edwin Quevedo Saavedra, Abraham Montero R., Oscar Valiente Paico, Jaime Noriega G., Carlos Zapata Olaya, María Medina Crisanto, José Saavedra M, Antonio Esparza Huamán, and Delia Arévalo de Benítez. 3 Luís Abad Saldarriaga, William Jacinto Aleman Benites, Maritza Amaya Coveñas, Sebastián Amaya Fiestas, Cesar Antón Olaya, Elmer Arrazabal Gallo, Juan Benítez Gómez, Oholger Wiston Benites Zárate, Jorge Cabanillas Dedios, Manuel Antonio Calle Atoche, Rosa Castillo Marcelo, Raquel Coveñas Viuda de Quevedo [common law spouse of Mr. Leither Quevedo Saavedra], Eduardo Emiliano Chavarri Vélez, Julio Chiroque Silva, Pedro Carlos Garcés Solís, Luzmila García de Cáceres, Pedro Infante Antonio, Pedro López Antón, Maria Elba Marchán Avila, Luís Mogollón Granda, Emilio Augusto Morales Silva, Cruz Alberto More Bayona, José Juan Obando Reto, Manuel Jesús Paiva Pacherres, Ricardo Quevedo Herrera, Helber R. Romero Rivera, Wilson Seminario Agurto, Asunción Mechato Serraqué, and Julio Serraqué Azáldegui. 4