next of kin of Wilfredo Terrones Silva, Teresa Díaz Aparicio, Santiago Antezana Cueto, Néstor Rojas Medina, and Cory Clodolia Tenicela Tello. As a result, the Commission drew up the corresponding recommendations. II. PROCEEDINGS WITH THE IACHR A. Processing of the cases that have an admissibility report 5. Between 1992 and 2003, the Inter-American Commission received five petitions whose proceedings up to the decision for the admissibility of three of them are explained in detail in the admissibility reports No. 108/11,2 No. 163/11,3 and No. 3/12.4 In those reports, the IACHR declared that the petitions were admissible and indicated that the alleged incidents could tend to establish a violation of the rights provided for in Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 25 of the American Convention in connection with the obligations set forth in Articles 1.1 and 2 of the same instrument, as well as the obligations set forth in Article I and III of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. Case 12.224 – Santiago Antezana Cueto was also declared admissible for the alleged violations of Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the InterAmerican Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. 6. Regarding case 11.054, in the merits stage, the petitioners submitted their observations on the basis of a document on May 28, 2012. As for the state, it submitted its observations on the basis of a communication of November 7, 2012. Afterwards, the Commission has continued to receive communications from the petitioners and the state, which have been duly forwarded to the parties. 7. Regarding case 12.224, in the merits stage, the petitioners submitted a document on February 7, 2012. As for the state, it submitted observations by means of communications on April 24 and May 21, 2012. Subsequently, the Commission continued to receive communications from the petitioners and the state, which were duly forwarded to the parties. 8. Regarding case 12.823, after the admissibility report was issued, the petitioners submitted a document on October 25, 2011, which was forwarded to the state. As for the state, it submitted observations on June 15, 2012 and December 10, 2013, which were duly forwarded to the petitioners. B. Processing of the cases that do not have a ruling on admissibility 9. Regarding case 11.053, the petition was received by the Commission on August 28, 1992, and proceedings started on September 2, that same year. In April 2004, the Commission requested up-todate information from both parties and, on the basis of a communication of May 31, 2005, informed them that, by virtue of Article 37.3 of its Rules of Procedure in force at the time, it had decided to postpone dealing with its admissibility until the discussion on its merits had taken place. On the basis of a document on August 15, 2011, the petitioners submitted their observations, which were forwarded to the state, and the latter submitted its observations on the petitioner’s position by means of the note of September 22, 2011. 10. With respect to case 12.225, the petition was received by the Commission on November 12, 1998. In December 2004, the Commission requested up-to-date information from both parties and on the basis of the communication of November 9, 2015, it informed them that, by virtue of Article 37.3 of its Rules of Procedure, it had decided to postpone treatment of admissibility until the debate and ruling on the merits of the case had taken place. On May 25, 2007, June 9, 2011, and September 23, 2011, the petitioners submitted observations on the merits. On April 25, 2011, August 31, 2011, and March 19, 2004, the state submitted its observations on the petitioners’ position. All the communications were duly forwarded to both parties. 2 IACHR, Report No. 108/11, Case 12.823, Admissibility, Cory Clodolia Tenicela Tello et al., July 22, 2011. 3 IACHR, Report No. 163/11, Case 11.054, Admissibility, Teresa Díaz Aparicio et al., November 2, 2011. 4 IACHR, Report No. 3/12, Case 12.224, Admissibility, Santiago Antezana Cueto et al., January 27, 2012.