2 topic of redress for the victims and their next-of-kin, it states that in 2006, by means of Law No. 28592, “Law Creating the Comprehensive Reparations Plan,” a regulatory framework was established for the Comprehensive Reparations Plan for the victims of the violence that took place between May 1980 and November 2000, in accordance with the conclusions and recommendations of the report published by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. 6. After analyzing the positions of the parties, the Inter-American Commission concludes that the Peruvian State is responsible for violating the rights to life, to humane treatment, to a fair trial, and to judicial protection, enshrined in Articles 4, 5, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with the obligations set out in Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof, with respect to the individuals identified in this report. However, the Commission believes that since the competent courts convicted the perpetrator of those actions and enforced the payment of compensation to the families of the deceased victims and to Alberto Bejarano Laura, as provided for in the judgment of July 23, 2008, the violation of articles 4 and 5 of the American Convention with respect to Zulma Tarazona Arrieta, Norma Teresa Perez y Alberto Bejarano Laura was remedied in part. II. PROCESSING BY THE IACHR 7. The petitioners lodged the complaint with the Commission on January 22, 1996. Developments taking place between the lodging of the petition and the adoption of the admissibility decision are set out in detail in Admissibility Report No. 83/10, adopted on October 10, 2001. 8. On October 24, 2001, the Commission notified the parties of that report and, in accordance with Article 38.1 of the Rules of Procedure then in force, set a period of two months for the petitioners to submit additional comments on the merits and, pursuant to Article 38.2 of the Rules of Procedure, made itself available to the parties with a view to reaching a friendly settlement. 9. On November 19, 2001, the IACHR received a communication from the petitioners stating their willingness to begin a friendly settlement procedure; this was conveyed to the State on January 17, 2002, with a deadline of one month for returning its comments. In a communication of February 15, 2002, the State noted its willingness to begin the friendly settlement procedure. The Commission forwarded that communication to the petitioners on February 26, 2002, with a deadline of 7 days for returning their comments, and again on March 18, 2002, with a deadline of 15 days for returning their comments. On March 20, 2002, the IACHR sent the petitioners the annexes to the State’s submission of February 15, 2002. 10. In a communication dated May 10, 2004, the IACHR asked the State and the petitioners to sent up-to-date information on the case and on the progress, if any, made with the friendly settlement procedure. The State requested an extension on June 15, 2004, which the IACHR granted on August 4, 2004. In turn, the petitioners sent the Commission up-to-date information in a submission dated June 18, 2004. On September 9, 2004, the State requested an additional extension, which the Commission granted on September 23, 2004. The State submitted up-to-date information on November 16, 2004, and it sent the annexes to that communication on December 15, 2004. 11. On May 31, 2005, the IACHR asked the petitioners to submit their additional comments on the merits, in accordance with Article 38.1 of its Rules of Procedure in force at the time; those comments were presented in a communication dated August 3, 2004. On August 1, 2006, the IACHR forwarded those comments to the State, with a deadline of two months for it to return its comments. The State submitted those comments in a communication of October 2, 2006, and they were conveyed to the petitioners on October 31, 2006. 12. The Commission received a submission the from State on May 18, 2011, which it forwarded to the petitioners on June 23, 2011, with a deadline of one month for returning their comments. The petitioners sent comments on July 27, 2011; these were forwarded to the State on August 15, 2011, and to date the State has returned no comments. In a communication of August 15, 2011, the