protected by Articles 19 and 17(4), in connection with Article 1(1), in relation to the daughters of
Ms. Karen Atala. Furthermore, the Commission decides to publish this report and to include it in
its annual report to the OAS General Assembly.
II.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
5. On November 24, 2004, the Commission received a petition lodged by Ms. Karen Atala
represented by attorneys from the Public Liberties Association, the Public Interest Clinic of the
Universidad Diego Portales, and the Ideas Foundation; 4 it acknowledged receipt of the petition on
December 6, 2004. On January 24, 2005, the petitioner sent a communication to the Commission
in which she named the attorney Macarena Sáez as her representative in this proceeding. On
March 23, 2005, the Commission forwarded the petition to the Government and gave it two
months to respond. On June 15, 2005, the Government of Chile submitted its comments on the
petition, which were transmitted to the petitioners on June 22, 2005.
6. On August 4, 2005, the Commission wrote to the parties communicating its decision to invoke
article 37(3) of its Rules of Procedure in order to expedite the processing of the petition, bearing
in mind the ages of Ms. Karen Atala’s three minor daughters. In said communication, the
Commission requested the petitioners, in accordance with the provisions of article 38(1) of its
Rules of Procedure, to submit additional observations on the merits within one month. The
petitioners responded that same day confirming that they had no further observations to add on
the merits of the case. On August 5, 2005, the Commission forwarded the petitioner’s
observations to the State and requested it to present its additional observations on the merits
within two months. On October 11, 2005, the State confirmed that it had no additional
observations on the merits of the matter either.
7. On September 19, 2005, the Commission wrote to both parties, placed itself at their disposal,
in accordance with Article 41(1) of its Rules of Procedure, with a view to reaching a friendly
settlement, and requested them to reply within 15 days regarding their interest in initiating the
procedure provided at Article 48(1)(f) of the American Convention. The State replied to the
Commission on October 4, 2005, saying that it "reserve[d] the right under Article 41 of the IACHR
Rules of Procedure to express its position in that respect at any time during the review of the
instant petition." The aforesaid communication was relayed to the petitioners on October 12,
2005.
8. On March 7, 2006, a hearing on the case, attended by the petitioners and the State of Chile,
was held at the headquarters of the IACHR in Washington, D.C., in the framework of its 124th
Regular Period of Sessions. As a result of the hearing, the State of Chile expressed to the
petitioners its intention to initiate negotiations with a view to reaching a friendly settlement of the
case. The petitioners informed the IACHR on March 31, 2006, that a meeting had been held to
discuss general aspects that would enable the parties to identify the foundations of a friendly
settlement agreement and they requested the IACHR to appoint a representative to facilitate the
process. That letter was conveyed to the State on April 11, 2006, together with the information
that the IACHR had decided to place itself at the disposal of the parties in order to reach a friendly
settlement of the matter. The petitioners, in a communication to the IACHR dated August 9, 2006,
informed of the progress in the dialogue between the State of Chile and the petitioners aimed at
reaching a friendly settlement favorable to both parties. In the communication, the petitioners
also reiterated their request for the active involvement of the IACHR in the development of a
friendly settlement.
4 The petitioner specifies that the Ideas Foundation is represented by Francisco Estévez Valencia and names as her
representatives before the IACHR the attorneys Verónica Undurraga Valdez, Claudia Moraga Klenner, Felipe González
Morales, and Domingo Lovera Parmo
2