2.
The petitioners complain that the alleged acts set forth in this
petition constitute a violation of several provisions of the American
Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter "the Convention" or "the
American Convention”): the right to life (Article 4); the right to humane
treatment (Article 5); the right to a fair trial (Article 8); the right to
equal protection before the law (Article 24); the right to judicial
protection (Article 25); and the right to progressive development of
economic, social, and cultural rights (Article 26) in conjunction with the
obligation to respect the rights referred to in Article 1(1) of the
American Convention.
3.
The State responded to these allegations by submitting a report
on the implementation of precautionary measures granted by the
Commission to the beneficiaries. The report argues that the State did
act on the petitions put forth by the parties, and urges them to exhaust
domestic legal and political remedies.
4.
Having analyzed the positions of the parties in compliance with
the requirements of Articles 46 and 47 of the Convention, and without
prejudging the merits of the case, the Commission declares the petition
admissible. The Commission further resolves to notify the parties of its
decision, to publish it, and include it in the Annual Report of the OAS
General Assembly.
II.

PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION

5.
The IACHR registered the petition received on August 26, 2003 as
docket number P 642/03. Following its preliminary analysis, on April 21,
2004 the Commission forwarded a copy in pertinent part to the State,
giving it two months to submit the information as per Article 30(3) of
the Rules of Procedure.
6.
On June 22, 2004, the Commission received the State’s response
and on July 7, 2004 duly transmitted it to the petitioners, granting them
one month to submit any pertinent observations on the matter. On
August 9, 2004, the petitioners requested a seven day extension to
present their comments; it was granted that same day. On August 17,
2004, the petitioners submitted their observations to the State’s
response. In a note dated October 4, 2004, the petitioners requested
the inclusion of ten persons infected with HIV/AIDS who also joined in
filing an appeal for legal protection (amparo), arguing that by doing so
they exhausted domestic remedies in the case. The note was forwarded
to the State for comment, which was given to the Commission on March
4, 2005
2

Select target paragraph3