4 period of three months to present its observations, in keeping with Article 37(1) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. 15. The IACHR also informed the parties on July 29, 2010 that cases 12.595, 12.596 and 12.621 had been joined, pursuant to Article 29(1)(d) of its Rules of Procedure. In the text of the letter, the Commission informed the following: The Commission decided to join these cases on the basis of article 29(1)(d) of its Rules of Procedure, which contemplates this procedure when two or more petitions are related to similar facts, involve the same persons, or reveal the same pattern of conduct. The cases at issue were joined because they are related to similar facts and reveal the same pattern of conduct. 16. On September 1, 2010, the petitioners requested that during the IACHR’s 140 th regular session, a hearing be held on the joined case. That request was denied on October 5, 2010, given the many hearings already requested. 17. On November 4, 2010, the State presented comments on the “inadequacy of the admissibility report’s characterization of the facts in dispute in the case; the necessary requirements and the proper procedural moment for joining cases under Article 29(d) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, and the expiration of the time period by which petitioners must submit their observations on the merits.” The State also requested that the IACHR take steps to set out the facts in the admissibility reports of all three cases and, once the facts of each case have been properly characterized, justify and defend its decision to join the three cases “adequately and according to the criteria set out [by the State].” Finally, the State asked that the Commission define the legal consequences of the petitioners’ belated presentation of additional observations on the merits. 18. By a communication dated November 16, 2010, the IACHR gave the petitioners one month to present their observations on the State’s November 4 communication. The petitioners’ observations were received on April 1, 2011, and forwarded to the State on April 6. On April 11, 2011, the State repeated its request to the Commission and informed it that “it reserves the right not to present its observations on the merits of the cases […] until such time as the IACHR answers” the procedural questions raised by the Colombian State in its earlier notes. The Commission acknowledged receipt and forwarded the communication to the petitioners on May 18, 2011. On August 3, 2011, the State reiterated its request that the Commission state its opinion on the procedural questions raised by the Colombian State in its earlier notes. Bearing in mind the presumption of truth provided for in Article 38 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, the State asked that the IACHR refrain from applying that article inasmuch as the State was ready and willing to provide responsive information once the questions it raised had been answered. The Commission acknowledged receipt of that communication on August 4, 2011. 19. The petitioners presented additional observations on the merits on November 22 and 25, 2011. Both communications were sent to the State on November 28, 2011, which was to present its observations within one month. On January 18, 2012, the petitioners requested a hearing on the merits of the case, which the Commission declined on due to the high number of hearings requested by the IACHR. 20. On January 5, 2012, the State requested a one-month extension to present its observations on the merits, which the IACHR granted on January 10, 2012. On February 13, 2012, the