II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION SUBSEQUENT TO THE ADMISSIBILITY REPORT 6. On November 11, 2004, the Commission notified the parties of the Admissibility Report; it gave them two months to present their additional observations on the merits of the petition, and placed itself at the parties’ disposal in order to facilitate a friendly settlement. 7. On January 20, March 1, and April 19, 2005, the petitioner asked the IACHR for extensions of the deadline to submit its observations on the merits and its reply regarding a potential friendly settlement. The IACHR granted a 30-day extension on each occasion. 8. On August 25, 2005, the petitioner presented observations on the merits of the petition and expressed its interest in the friendly settlement process. On September 7, 2005, the IACHR forwarded the petitioner’s observations to the State and asked it to present its observations within two months. On September 20, the IACHR called the petitioner and the State to a working meeting on October 19, 2005 in order to address matters concerning this case. In a communication dated October 19, 2005, the State expressed its willingness to engage in friendly settlement proceedings. In a communication dated May 13, 2009, the petitioner informed the IACHR of its decision to end the friendly settlement process and forwarded additional information.1 On May 14, 2009, the Commission forwarded the information to the State and informed the petitioner and the State of Colombia that it was terminating the attempted friendly settlement stage pursuant to Article 41(4) and (6) of its Rules of Procedure. In a communication dated July 15, 2009, the State presented observations on the merits of the petition, which were forwarded to the petitioner on October 26, 2009. 9. On May 29 and July 25, 2013, the IACHR requested that the petitioner provide information relating to the case, and the petitioner did so. In a communication dated August 22, 2013, the Commission forwarded the pertinent parts to the State. On October 7, 2013, the State asked the IACHR for an extension and on November 19 it submitted additional information on the merits of the petition, which was forwarded to the petitioner on December 5, 2013. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. Position of the petitioner The work of journalist Nelson Carvajal Carvajal and the motive for his murder 10. The petitioner alleged that journalist Nelson Carvajal Carvajal was murdered for reasons related to the practice of his profession. The journalist was working as the director of the news program “Momento Regional” and the radio magazine programs “Mirador de la Semana,” “Amanecer en el Campo,” and “Tribuna Médica” of the Radio Sur radio station in the municipality of Pitalito, department of Huila. The petitioner stated that in addition to his journalistic work, Mr. Carvajal was a teacher and the principal of the Los Pinos School and also served on the Pitalito town council during the 1992-1994 and 1995-1997 terms. 11. The petitioner stated that Nelson Carvajal Carvajal was murdered on April 16, 1998, as he was leaving the Los Pinos School. The petitioner indicated that Carvajal was shot seven times by an individual who then escaped on a motorcycle with another person who had been waiting for the shooter. 12. The petitioner indicated that Carvajal had been conducting investigative journalism into acts of political corruption in the area. According to the IAPA, Carvajal Carvajal had been reporting on a businessman and politician’s involvement with the construction of housing in a high-risk area with improper 1 With regard to the termination of the friendly settlement phase with the Colombian State, the petitioner expressed the opinion that they had failed to reach a favorable outcome that would allow for the establishment of the facts of the crime or reduce the degree of impunity.