2 IACHR transmitted the petition to the Paraguayan State, giving it 90 days to submit its observations. In a note of December 7, 2000, the State expressed its willingness to reach a friendly settlement in the case; that note was forwarded to the petitioner on January 18, 2001. The petitioner responded in a note received on November 14, 2001, making some requests with respect to a friendly settlement; that note was forwarded to the State the same day. 6. The State presented additional information in notes of January 23, February 12, April 12, June 26, and August 23, 2001; June 5, 2003; and September 16, 2004. These communications were duly forwarded to the petitioner. 7. In communications of April 29, 2003, and August 4, 2004, the Commission requested specific information about the case from the Paraguayan State, and received a response in due course. 8. In a communication of September 22, 2005, the petitioner notified the Commission she was withdrawing from efforts to reach a friendly settlement with the Paraguayan State, owing to the lack of progress in the procedure. On September 4, 2007, when the Rapporteur at the time was visiting Paraguay, he met with representatives of the State and the petitioner to discuss the matter. 9. In a note of May 18, 2009, the Commission asked the petitioner for specific information on the case, and repeated this request on May 18, 2010. The Commission received communications from the petitioner on August 18, September 24, October 7 and 11, and December 1, 2010. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. Position of the petitioner 10. The petitioner said her son, Vicente Ariel Noguera, was born on April 29, 1978, and at the age of 15 entered compulsory military service in perfect health. She said that on January 2, 1996 he was transferred from the CIMEFOR (Reserve Officers Military Training Center) to Lagerenza in the Paraguayan Chaco and died nine days later. She said that the official versions of her son’s cause of death ranged from “sudden death,” to Hantavirus, to generalized infection, with the last one prevailing. 11. With respect to the legal actions pursued, the petitioner said she filed a complaint on January 17, 1996, with the ordinary justice system on which little action was taken, and according to the petitioner, the matter was virtually paralyzed until January 26, 1998. Among the steps taken in the investigation, the petitioner noted the autopsy, with findings that the cause of death was “acute intersticial pneumonitis of a viral type,” even though there was evidence of a blow on the head and traces of blood. She said that an investigation was started in the military justice system, which had been dropped because “there was neither offense to investigate nor any criminal to punish.” 12. The petitioner said that some of the soldiers had told her that two lieutenants had punished Vicente Ariel to “give him a lesson” but “they got carried away”; that they had seen the lieutenants kick him and take him to the punishment cell. Others had said they were sure her son was victim of rape and torture, and all of them said that Vicente Ariel was not sick on the day he died. The petitioner said that notwithstanding this, those soldiers had not provided that information in their statements to the authorities and some had even denied it. The petitioner said that one of her son’s comrades had told her that they all had been threatened with discharge if they told what had really happened to Vicente Ariel. 13. The petitioner added that since 1989 there had been 102 deaths of underage soldiers, and that she, along with other mothers, had founded the AFAVISEM organization and that as result of its efforts, she had managed to obtain a pension. B. Position of the State 14. In its first communications, the Paraguayan State expressed its interest in a dialogue leading to friendly settlement of the case, and sent the Commission general information about compulsory