13 b) The petition was filed extemporaneously. The State mentioned two dates in this regard: the first was June 18 or 19, 1986, when the events at El Frontón occurred; the second was June 7, 1990, the date the Commission last asked the State to provide information concerning the exhaustion of local remedies. “As the petition made no mention of any emergency situation that would have prevented or impeded the use of local remedies, if June 18 or 19, 1986 is taken as the date on which the time period began, then the petition was time-barred since the Inter-American Commission did not receive it until April 27, 1987.” At the public hearing, the State reiterated that the petition was entered when the time period established in Article 38 of the Commission’s Regulations had already lapsed. The State went on to argue that “if June 7, 1990 is taken as the date on which the time period begins, the petition has to be considered all the more extemporaneous since until then the Inter-American Commission had not yet established that local remedies had been exhausted.” 57. The following is the Court’s summation of the Commission’s arguments: a) Nine years after the processing of the case first began, the State cannot allege that the claimants did not indicate what remedies they had pursued in the local courts. Mrs. Virginia Ugarte Rivera filed a petition with Callao’s First Examining Court seeking a writ of habeas corpus. The State was aware of the case and that it was in the courts. Consequently, the State was duly informed that by the time the petition was filed with the Commission, the claimants had already pursued and exhausted the local remedies, in accordance with Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention; b) The State made a number of assertions based on an apparent misunderstanding of how the time periods are computed. It also contradicted itself when referencing the extemporaneous filing of the complaint. On June 26, 1986, Mrs. Virginia Ugarte Rivera petitioned Callao’s First Examining Court seeking a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Mr. Durand Ugarte and Mr. Ugarte Rivera, as their whereabouts were unknown. That writ was dismissed on June 27, 1986. Several higher courts reviewed the case until finally, on October 28, 1986, the Court of Constitutional Guarantees upheld the decision to refuse to grant the writ of habeas corpus. That opened up the possibility for the claimants to turn to the Inter-American Court, which they did on April 27, 1987, within the time period established in Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention. On May 19 of that year, the Commission sent the pertinent parts of that petition to the State. c) Although the State was asked on a number of occasions to supply information on the Durand and Ugarte and Neira Alegría et al. cases, it did not reply until September 29, 1989. At that time, it stated that the facts in these two cases were being examined by the military justice system, and that local remedies had not, therefore, been exhausted. The Navy’s Second Permanent Court of Inquiry instituted proceedings to determine whether there were grounds to suspect that the Naval troops that took part in quashing the riots had acted unlawfully. On July 6, 1987, the case was dismissed with a finding that exonerated the suspects of any wrongdoing. That ruling was confirmed on July 16, 1987. Proceedings in the case were reopened and ended once and for all on July 20, 1989. From the foregoing it is clear that at