5. Without prejudging the merits of the case, after analyzing the positions of the parties and in compliance with the requirements set forth in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, the Commission decided to rule the case admissible for the purposes of examining the alleged violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 4, 8, 19, 21, 24, 25 and 26 of the Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. The Commission resolves to give notice of this decision to the parties, and to publish it and include it in its Annual Report to the General Assembly of the Organization of American States. II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION 6. The Commission received the petition on May 4, 2006, and registered it as number 422-06. On October 12, 2006, the Commission conveyed the relevant parts to the State and asked it to reply within a period of two months in compliance with the provisions of Article 30(2) of its Rules of Procedure. The State’s reply was received on July 17, 2007. 7. The IACHR received information from both petitioners on the following dates: June 23, 2006; September 11 and 15, 2007; May 19 and September 9, 2010; and April 9, May 28, June 4 and 9, July 10, 13, and 16, September 1, 4, 15, and 20, October 5, 7, 15, 18, 31, November 19, and December 12, 2013. In turn, the State submitted additional information to the IACHR on September 9, 2010. The notes sent by each party were duly forwarded to the other party. 8. Likewise, in a communication dated February 24, 2014, the IACHR asked the State to submit its observations on various documents presented by the petitioners in which joint reference was made to the P-422-06 matter and to the precautionary measures related to it. On March 18 and April 2, 2014, the State requested an extension for the presentation of its response and asked the Commission to send it a copy of the “content of the document considered to be the definitive one so that the State may exercise its legitimate right to procedural defense.” On April 14, 2014, the IACHR informed the State that the documents transmitted corresponded to the pertinent parts of various documents submitted by the petitioners in which joint reference was made to the petition’s processing and the precautionary measures, reiterating that these documents had been registered in due course as part of the precautionary measures process. In this respect, the Commission said that the request for observations on these communications was being made in the framework of the petition, and it granted the State an extension, as requested, for a period of one month. 9. On May 9, 2014, the State presented a document with additional observations on the admissibility of the present case and said that “it made no sense to include as part of the petition’s processing those proceedings that have been recorded in another context, such as precautionary measures, which moreover do not have protected status under the Convention.” Said communication was forwarded to the petitioners for information. On September 15, 2014, the petitioners submitted additional material, which was transmitted to the State for information. − Precautionary Measures (MC-91-06) 10. Along with the initial petition, the petitioners requested the adoption of precautionary measures on behalf of the Tagaeri and Taromenani peoples and their members. The application claimed that on April 26, 2006, in the Cononaco Chico sector of the Yasuní National Park, an unspecified number of Taromenanis – possibly as many as thirty – were killed, allegedly by illegal loggers. It contended that the incident was related to illegal logging activities and to the absence of effective measures taken by the State to control logging and to prevent attacks on the peoples in isolation and their ancestral territory. 11. In light of this situation of risk, on May 10, 2006, the IACHR asked the Ecuadorian State to “adopt effective measures necessary to protect the lives and physical integrity of the members of the Tagaeri and Taromenani peoples and, in particular, to adopt the measures necessary to protect the territory they inhabit, including the steps necessary to prevent the entry of third parties.” The State and the petitioners reported regarding some progress made in the area of protective measures, as well as about subsequent acts of violence. Subsequently, in the context of this action and the petition, the State presented communications to 2