5 State requested a second extension on the deadline for presenting its observations, this time for two months. In that note, the State made the same requests to the Commission that it made in its notes of October 30, 2010, April 8, 2011, and August 3, 2011, including the following: “(i) Proceed to properly characterize the facts in dispute in the admissibility reports on the three cases in question; (ii) once the facts of each case have been properly characterized, adequately justify and defend, according to the criteria set out in the October 2010 note, its decision to join the three cases in question; and (iii) define the legal consequences of the petitioners’ belated and unjustified presentation of additional observations on the merits of the three cases before us.” The IACHR granted the extension requested on March 15 for the period of one month. 21. In a communication dated March 15, 2012, which had as its purpose to request additional information from the parties related to this case, the Commission responded to the three points raised by the State, recalling what was decided in the three admissibility reports pertaining to the cases at issue: As for the procedural matters the Colombian State raised in the note in question, the IACHR respectfully reminds the honorable Government that in its admissibility reports No. 3/07, No. 4/07 and No. 46/07, the IACHR defined the scope and nature of the facts that would be considered during the merits phase in the matter in question. The IACHR also informed the State that cases 12.595, 12.596 and 12.621 were joined on July 29, 2010, and highlighted that “the Commission decided to join those cases pursuant to Article 29(1)(d) of its Rules of Procedure, under which two or more petitions may be joined if they address similar facts, involve the same persons, or reveal the same pattern of conduct. The cases in question were joined because they address similar facts and reveal the same pattern of conduct. 22. In that same communication, the Commission also requested from the State to forward the complete case files of the investigations related to the facts at issue. On March 15, 2012, the Commission informed the petitioners that it had granted the State an extension and requested that within one month’s time, they provide additional information relative to the facts of the case. On April 16, 2012, the State requested a one-month extension to respond to the request of the Commission. The petitioners submitted additional observations and documents on May 3 and 11, 2012, which were forwarded to the State on May 15, 2012, in order for it to submit its response within one month’s time. The State afterwards presented five requests for extensions to present its merits observations on June 19, July 13, August 29, September 25, and October 26 of 2012, which were granted by the Commission. 23. On November 16, 2012, the observations by the Colombian State on the merits were received by the IACHR. In its observations, the State reiterated two of the three procedural requests to the IACHR included in its communications of November 4, 2010 and February 3, 2012 : (i) That the IACHR proceed to adequately characterize the facts of the dispute in the admissibility reports in the cases of Mery Naranjo et al., Luz Dary Ospina Bastidas et al., and Myriam Eugenia Rúa Figueroa et al.; and that (ii) once the facts of each case are characterized, that it proceed to justify and argue adequately and in keeping with the criteria set forth by the State, its decision to join the three cases just referenced. It expressly asked the IACHR to reconsider its response to these requests by the State received on March 16, 2012, given that it understands that the response given by the IACHR does not answer all the positions to which the State made reference in those notes. 24. The State indicated in its observations on the merits that in the admissibility reports on these matters the IACHR did not determine the facts in relation to the merits, as reference was made in those reports only to the version of the facts put forth by the petitioners. In response to this situation,