9. On August 11, 2006, the IACHR transmitted the aforesaid communication to the State, placed itself at the disposal of the parties, and granted the State 10 days to indicate its interest in proceeding with this option. In a communication dated August 22, 2006, the Chilean State replied and said communication was forwarded to the petitioners by the IACHR on September 6, 2006. The parties attended three meetings convened by the IACHR in the framework of its 126th (October 25, 2006), 128th (March 5, 2007), and 129th (July 19, 2007) Regular Periods of Sessions to discuss possible points of agreement for a potential friendly settlement. On October 11, 2006, October 25, 2006, and January 30, 2007, the petitioners provided the IACHR with information on progress in the discussions with the State. 10. The petitioners submitted additional observations to the IACHR on July 19, 2007. On October 11, 2007, the petitioners sent a communication to the IACHR in which they confirmed the conclusion of the negotiations for a friendly settlement, requested the IACHR to move forward with its examination of the petition, and requested that it approve the report on admissibility. Both communications were transmitted to the State on November 15, 2007, with the request that it reply within one month. On December 19, 2007, the State submitted its reply, which was forwarded to the petitioners on December 21, 2007, together with a request that they answer within one month. 11. On January 10, 2008, the Commission sent a communication to both parties to inform them that, in view of the conclusion of the friendly settlement process, it had decided to proceed with the admissibility stage. In accordance with Article 30(5) of its Rules of Procedure, the Commission requested the government of Chile to present additional observations on the admissibility of the case within one month. On February 4, 2008, the State requested a 30-day extension to submit its reply, and on the same day the Commission granted it an extension of 15 days. On March 31st and April 16th of 2008, the State presented additional observations to the Commission, which were forwarded to the petitioners on April 18, 2008. 12. During the processing of the case, the IACHR has received six amicus curiae briefs in support of the arguments of the petitioners. On September 27, 2005, the Asociación por los Derechos Civiles presented an amicus curiae brief, which was transmitted to both parties on October 12, 2005. On October 21, 2005, the Commission received an amicus curiae brief from the Red Iberoamericana de Jueces, which was forwarded to the parties on March 10, 2006. The Commission also received such a brief from the Latin American and Caribbean Committee for the Defense of Women's Rights (CLADEM) on January 19, 2006, 5 which was relayed to the parties on February 24, 2006. On March 1, 2006, the Commission received an amicus curiae brief presented by Corporación Opción, which was transmitted to the parties on March 20, 2006. The Commission received a fifth amicus curiae on October 26, 2006, from the Allard K. Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic at Yale Law School in the United States, which was forwarded to the parties on November 9, 2006. Finally, the Commission received a sixth amicus curiae brief on April 28, 2008 from the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA), which was forwarded to the parties on May 15, 2008. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. Position of the petitioners 13. The petitioners argue that several rights of Ms. Karen Atala and her three daughters were arbitrarily and abusively abridged when the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile revoked from Ms. Atala custody of her three daughters based exclusively on discriminatory prejudices by reason of her sexual orientation. They claim that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice discriminatorily applied the substantive rules that govern custody matters in Chile, which are 5 The amicus curiae brief from CLADEM was presented with the sponsorship of Maria Ysabel Cedano and Jeannette Llaja Villena. 3