3 8. On February 27, 2007, the IACHR approved Admissibility Reports No 3/073 and 4/074 and on March 20, 2007, notification of both reports was sent to the parties. On July 23, 2007, the IACHR approved Admissibility Report No. 46/07,5 notification of which was sent to the parties on August 15, 2007. 9. In the March 20, 2007 notifications (3/07 and 4/07) and the August 15, 2007 notification (46/07), the Commission informed the parties that the cases had been registered as numbers 12.595, 12.596 and 12.621, respectively. Pursuant to Article 38(1) of its Rules of Procedure, it set a period of two months for the petitioners to submit additional observations on the merits in each of the cases. Also, pursuant to Article 48(1)(f) of the Convention, it made itself available to the parties with a view to reaching a friendly settlement in each case. 10. On January 13, 2008, the petitioners requested a hearing to offer one witness to testify in all three cases -12.595, 12.596 and 12.621- and to make their arguments as to why the cases should be joined. On February 11, 2008, the IACHR informed the parties of its decision to convene a hearing, which would be held during the IACHR’s 131st session. On February 14, 2008, the State asked the Commission to reconsider its decision to convene a hearing to hear one witness testify in all three cases, and that in the case of still holding said hearing, the discussion would be confined to the possibility of joining the three cases. On February 21, 2008, the IACHR again advised the State of the purpose of the hearing, whereupon on February 26 the State filed its objections to the hearing. 11. On March 12, 2008, pursuant to Article 62(1) of its Rules of Procedure, the Commission held a hearing in which both sides were present and heard testimony from a single witness, Mrs. Mery del Socorro Naranjo Jiménez, who gave testimony concerning the facts in all three cases. 12. On April 17, 2008, the State requested that the hearing be deemed invalid and presented its observations on the “procedural inconsistencies that occurred in convoking the State” for the hearing and in the conduct of the hearing. It also reserved the right to present observations on the testimony given by Mrs. Naranjo in its brief on the merits. On December 15, 2008, the IACHR informed the State that the testimony and information received during the March 12 hearing were in keeping with articles 62 and 63 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure and that, consistent with Commission practice, it has the authority to convene whatever hearings it deems necessary to gather all the relevant information required to arrive at a well reasoned decision. The communications exchanged with the State were forwarded to the petitioners for their information. 13. On November 9, 2009, the State presented observations on the procedures used by the IACHR to convene hearings; the IACHR sent its reply on February 22, 2010. 14. On March 25, 2010, the petitioners presented additional observations on the merits of each of the three cases. These observations were sent to the State on June 29, 2010, which was given a 3 IACHR, Report No. 3/07 (Admissibility), Petition 1145-04, Miryam Eugenia Rúa Figueroa et al. (Comuna 13), Colombia, February 27, 2007. 4 IACHR, Report No. 4/07 (Admissibility), Petition 1147-04, Luz Dary Ospina Bastidas et al. (Comuna 13), Colombia, February 27, 2007. 5 IACHR, Report No. 46/07 (Admissibility), Petition 231-05, Mery Naranjo et al. (Comuna 13), Colombia, July 23, 2007.