3 4. The State replied on May 25, 1994. The communication was forwarded to the petitioners, who presented their rejoinder on October 6, 1994. On November 3 that year, the Commission forwarded this to Colombia, who replied on December 15. Both the petitioners and the State transmitted other communications regarding the status of the investigations and the domestic judicial proceedings to the Commission, and the latter forwarded the pertinent parts to the other party. 5. On October 8, 1996, the Commission held a hearing in which the parties presented their verbal arguments about the facts and the law applicable to the instant case. 6. On February 20, 1998, the Commission approved Report No. 10/98 and transmitted it to the State on March 6 that year. In the operative part of this Report, the Commission recommended: 119. That the Colombian State should commence a serious, impartial and effective investigation into the facts denounced, so as to be able to clarify the facts of January 23, 1991, and determine in full detail in an official report the circumstances of and responsibility for the violations committed. 120. That the Colombian State should submit all those responsible for the violations to the pertinent judicial proceedings so that they may be punished. 121. That the Colombian State should adopt measures in order to provide due reparation for the violations verified, including a compensation for the next of kin of the victims who have still not received this. 7. On May 11, 1998, the Commission received a note from the State, dated April 30, 1998, in which the State requested an additional period of 45 days to reply to Report No. 10/98. On May 14 that year, the Commission informed the parties that it had conceded to the State an additional period of ten days. 8. On May 22, 1998, the State made a proposal for a friendly settlement, which was forwarded to the petitioners, who forwarded their observations on May 29. In this proposal, the State indicated that it did not “totally” share the considerations and conclusions of Report No. 10/98, particularly with regard to exhaustion of domestic remedies and application of rules of international humanitarian law. Furthermore, it indicated that it proposed the creation of a Committee to expedite the criminal investigation. 9. On June 2, 1998, the State and the petitioners informed the Commission that they had agreed on a period of 30 days to initiate negotiations designed to reach a friendly settlement and suspend the course of the periods established in Article 51.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”). 10. On July 1, 1998, the petitioners informed the Committee that, at that time, the conditions to reach a friendly settlement did not exist; they requested it to continue processing the case and to resume the course of the suspended periods. This information was forwarded to the State. 11. On July 6, 1998, the Commission submitted the case to the Inter-American Court (supra 1). IV