19 March 6, 2000, the Commission held a hearing in order to examine the possibility of reaching a friendly settlement. During this hearing, the representatives reiterated their proposal and the State indicated that it could not comply with it, because “accepting the petitioners’ request [would] involve violating domestic law.” Then, on February 22, 2001, the Commission adopted Admissibility Report No. 28/01 in which it again put itself at the disposal of the parties to reach a friendly settlement. On April 17, 2001, the representatives informed the Commission that they were not interested in reaching a friendly settlement. Finally on August 24, 2001, the Commission held a meeting in Santo Domingo, the Dominican Republic, with the State and the representatives, but a friendly settlement was not reached. 70. On October 1, 2001, the State informed the Commission that on September 25, 2001, it had delivered birth certificates to the children Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosico. 71. On October 17, 2001, the representatives informed the Commission that the State had delivered birth certificates to the alleged victims, and indicated that this action did not constitute a friendly settlement because, during the hearing of March 6, 2000, the State had not considered any of the points they had proposed. 72. The Court deems that in order to reach a friendly settlement there must be a basic consensus among the parties, which shows their willingness to end the dispute on the merits of the matter and the possible reparations and this has not occurred in the instant case. 73. The Court observes that, in this case, the Commission made itself available to the parties to reach a friendly settlement, and the representatives and the State agreed to accept this procedure. The representatives made a proposal for a friendly settlement during the procedure. However, the State did not accept it and stated that “the petitions [of the representatives] [went] far beyond the purpose of a friendly settlement.” The Commission also indicated that it considered negotiations had concluded, because a friendly settlement had not been reached, following the meeting held in the Dominican Republic on August 24, 2001, with the participation of the representatives of the State, the children and the Commission. On September 25, 2001, the State granted birth certificates to the children. However, on October 17, 2001 the representatives indicated that the State’s action did not constitute a friendly settlement, because their proposal involved the adoption of other measures; they also reiterated that the action was not carried out within a formal friendly settlement procedure. 74. From the above, it is clear that the friendly settlement procedure did not conclude with an express agreement of the parties to settle the matter. Consequently, the Court rejects the second preliminary objection filed b the State. * * * THIRD PRELIMINARY OBJECTION Lack of competence ratione temporis Arguments of the State