information regarding about the whereabouts and the situation of Mr. Palma, in order to
determine whether the case fit within the suppositions described in Article 29 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission in effect at the time. Via communication on August 28,
1998, the State of Ecuador presented its response, which was then forwarded to the
petitioners in a communication dated September 10, 1998, with a period of 45 days for
presenting observations. On December 1, 1998, the State sent additional correspondence
with information complementing the information it had presented on August 28, 1998, and
this was also sent to the petitioners in a communication dated December 31, 1998, with a
period of 30 days for presenting observations.
6.
The petitioners presented their observations in communications received on
March 15 and June 11, 1999, and these were forwarded to the State on August 23 and 24
respectively with a 40 day period for presenting observations. The State presented its
observations to that communication on November 24, 1999 and these were sent to the
petitioners on December 8, 1999 with a period of 45 days for presenting their own
comments.
7.
The petitioners presented their response in a communication dated February
21, 2000, which was sent on to the State on May 18, 2000, with a 30 day period for
presenting observations. The State presented its observations through briefs dated August
30 and September 11, 2000, and these were forwarded to the petitioners on March 26 and
27 of 2001 respectively, with a period of 30 days for presenting observations. The IACHR
informed the petitioners via a communication on April 11, 2003 that in accordance with
Article 37 (3) of the Rules of Procedure in effect at the time, it had deferred the decision on
admissibility until there could be further discussion and a decision made on the merits of the
case.
8.
On August 24, 2005, the IACHR communicated to the petitioners and to the
State its decision to defer the decision on admissibility until there had been discussion and a
decision on the merits. The Commission then asked the petitioners to present additional
observations about the merits of the case within a period of two months, in accordance
with the provisions of Article 38(1) of its Rules of Procedure. In a communication dated
November 17, 2005, the petitioners presented their additional observations about the merits
of the case, which were sent to the State on January 30, 2006 with a period of two
months for presenting observations. The State requested an additional 30 days from the
Commission in a communication dated March 14, 2006, and this extension was granted on
April 20, 2006.
9.
The State presented its additional observations on the merits in a
communication dated May 30, 2006, which was sent to the petitioners on July 20, 2006
with a deadline of one month for presenting observations. The petitioners presented their
observations in a communication dated September 8, 2006 and these were sent to the
State on March 26, 2007 with a deadline of one month [for the State to present its
observations] but no corresponding reply had been received by the time in which the report
was adopted. In a communication dated August 10, 2010, the Commission asked the two
parties about their willingness to initiate friendly settlement proceedings that might be of
interest to both and gave a period of one month for them to express such interest. On
September 24, 2010, the petitioners sent a communication indicating that they were willing
to initiate friendly settlement proceedings, and on September 27, 2010, they sent another
communication in which they indicated that it was not possible to initiate the proposed
friendly settlement proceedings since, in spite of the petitioner’s predisposition to initiate
such proceedings, the Ecuadorian Attorney General’s position regarding that possibility had
been a consistent no over the last two years. The IACHR sent both of these
communications to the State on October 12, 2010.

Select target paragraph3