2 II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION 7. Carlos Alberto Fernández Prieto’s petition was lodged with the then Buenos Aires office of the OAS on July 12, 1999 and was received by the Commission on the 30th of that month. The petitioners submitted additional information in November and December 1999. The IACHR forwarded the relevant portions of the petition to the Argentine State on August 8, 2000 and asked it to submit a reply within 90 days. The State submitted its comments on December 18, 2000. The Commission forwarded this reply to the petitioners on December 26, 2000. 8. The petitioners sent additional comments regarding the case of Carlos Alberto Fernández Prieto in communications received on February 26, March 29, May 10, 1 September 5, October 9, and 30 November, 2001; on September 20 and October 22, 2002 2; on January 16, March 13, June 18, and October 7, 2003; on January 9, 2004; on October 4, 2005, and on October 11, 2006. All were duly forwarded to the State. 9. The State submitted additional comments regarding this petition on April 27, May 29, August 8, October 5, November 28, 2001; on May 31, and November 5, 2002; on January 24, 2003; on May 30, 2005, and on June 15, 2006, all of which were duly forwarded to the petitioners. 10. Additionally, on March 31, 2003, the Commission received a petition on behalf of Carlos Alejandro Tumbeiro from the attorney Eleonora Devoto, Official public defender with the Argentine National Public Defender’s Office, and on October 31 and November 15, 2005, the National Public Defender’s Office asked the IACHR to join Mr. Tumbeiro’s petition with Mr. Fernández Prieto’s petition. On September 24, 2007, the Commission forwarded Mr. Tumbeiro’s petition to the State and informed it that, acting under Article 29(1) of its Rules of Procedure, the Commission had decided to join this petition with Mr. Fernández Prieto’s petition, which it had notified to the State on August 8, 2000, because they addressed similar facts. It informed the petitioners of its joinder decision on the same date. 11. On November 29, 2007, the State requested an extension for submitting comments on Mr. Tumbeiro’s petition, which was granted, and it sent its reply on March 11, 2009. In this reply, it asked the Commission to separate the petitions. This information was forwarded to the petitioners, who indicated in a communication of July 21, 2009 that “such division was inappropriate, given that both cases involve similar facts […], which, furthermore, reveal an identical pattern of conduct [by the State].” On July 20, 2010, the petitioners sent additional comments. Both communications were duly forwarded to the State. 12. The State submitted additional information on June 13, 2011, reiterating its proposal to create a space for dialogue with a view to exploring the possibility of a friendly settlement in the Carlos Alejandro Tumbeiro case, as well as its request to separate the petitions. This communication was forwarded to the petitioners, who, in a document received on September 30, 2011, reiterated their position on the importance of keeping the petitions joined, owing to their “factual and legal similarity.” III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. Petitioners’ position 1. Re. Carlos Alberto Fernández Prieto 13. The petitioners recount that on May 26, 1992, officers of the Buenos Aires police force stopped a car in which Mr. Fernández Prieto and two others were traveling, for “suspicious behavior.” 1 In this communication, the petitioners provided the Commission with three expert opinions by doctors Alejandro Carrió, Héctor Mario Magariños, and Juan Carlos Wlasyc. 2 In this communication, the petitioners reported that on September 12, 2002 the Argentine Supreme Court had fined professor and judge Héctor Mario Magariños for the opinion on the Fernández Prieto case which they had submitted to the Commission.