six months of the date on which they learned the names of the true murderers. These observations were transmitted to the State through a note dated January 14, 1998, for it to respond within 30 days. That deadline was extended by 45 days at the request of the State, as can be seen in the request dated February 17 and the note dated February 20, 1997. Finally, on March 16, 1998, the Peruvian State responded to the observations and again requested that the petition be found inadmissible on the grounds that it was presented after the deadline set forth in article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention on Human Rights. This information was forwarded to the petitioner through a note dated April 23, 1998, with a 30-day deadline for that party to comment. To date, those observations have not yet been received. IV. POSITION OF THE PARTIES A. The Petitioner 6. The petitioner maintains that the Peruvian State is the true party responsible for the attack on Pedro Huilca Tecse that took his life, thus violating article 4.1 of the American Convention. Based on the letters signed by the former agent of the army intelligence service (SIE), Mesmer Carles Talledo, and made public on April 14, 1997 by Retired General Rodolfo Robles Espinoza, the petitioner initially listed Major Santiago Martín Rivas and specialists Juan José Sosa Saavedra, Yarleque, Nelson Carbajal García, and Pedro Pretell (deceased) as the members of the government paramilitary agency responsible for Huilca's assassination because of his demonstrations in favor of starting nationwide strikes in 1993. However, the petitioner clarifies that the complaint against Pedro Pretell Damasco was withdrawn since criminal action cannot be pursued against the deceased. The petitioner then sent a video in which former agent Mesmer Carles Talledo states that the order was given in his presence by General Juan Rivero Lozano, former Director of Army Intelligence, to Major Santiago Martín Rivas. 7. The petitioner explained that Pedro Huilca Tecse was the Secretary General of the General Confederation of Workers (CGTP), a union movement in Peru, which took up the cause of workers’ rights disavowed by the regime in Peru led by Alberto Fujimori Fujimori that had recently staged a coup d’état, and stressed that at the end of 1992, at the annual conference of executives held in Arequipa, as it happened Huilca Tecse called for on-going mobilization of workers unions in 1993. The assault was carried out precisely at 8:00 a.m. on December 18, 1992 in front of the victim's residence by a group composed of both men and women. The official investigation found members of a commando group of the Shining Path to be responsible. Some of those persons were subsequently captured and convicted, thus exhausting all legal remedies. Finally, upon learning of the accusation made by General Robles and the statements of former army agents Mesmer Carles Talledo and Clemente Alayo, who were convicted to life imprisonment for an alleged link to the Shining Path, the petitioner filed the respective criminal charges with the Office of the Attorney General. 8. The petitioner maintains that the complaint is admissible, because there is a clear violation of article 4.1 of the American Convention and the petition was presented within six months of the date on which new evidence emerged that had not been known during the proceedings for the murder of Huilca Tecse. This makes it clear that the time that transpired between the violation of the right to life, the results of domestic legal proceedings, and the emergence of new clues and proof was reasonable. Finally, all judicial remedies to investigate the assassination had been exhausted, and the sentence was made final. The petitioner also explained that, in keeping with the Peruvian legal system, only the persons convicted could lodge an appeal, and then that the petitioner does not include them as possible perpetrators [REV. CHECK SPANISH ORIGINAL]. In addition, the petitioner is not specifically interested in reviewing the judgment convicting innocent persons, but rather in investigating and convicting the persons truly responsible. Once the guilty verdict is obtained, those persons wrongly convicted would be in a position to appeal. Finally, the petitioner argues that there are no guarantees of due process, since the final investigation is proceeding slowly, and the government appears to be interested in dragging it out, since it dismissed the prosecutor who was pursuing the case impartially two days after that person requested formal amplification of the statement made by former agent Mesmer Carles Talledo implicating General Juan Rivero Lozano. 2