7. On June 14, 2000, the petitioners submitted new information in the case, which was forwarded to the State on June 20 of that year. On August 15, 2002, the petitioners again submitted new information, which was forwarded to the State on September 23 of that year. On December 12, 2002, the State presented a report-response to the petition and the petitioners’ subsequent communications, in which it requested that the petition be declared inadmissible. The State’s observations were forwarded to the petitioners on February 13, 2003. The petitioners submitted their views on the State’s report-response on June 30, 2003, and presented new information concerning the case on April 7 and May 6, 2004. On June 16, 2004, the State requested that the IACHR grant it a 30-day extension to respond to the petitioners’ correspondence. On June 7, July 27, and September 27, 2004, respectively, correspondence was received from the petitioners containing updated information on the case and requesting adoption of an admissibility report. On October 26, 2004, the State presented new observations in which it reiterated its position concerning the inadmissibility of the petition. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. Position of the petitioners 8. On February 15, 1998, Johan Alexis Ortiz Hernández, a 19 year old student in the final level of the National Guard Training School of Cordero [Escuela de Formación de Guardias Nacionales de Cordero (ESGUARNAC)], was taken, together with his fellow students, from the Cordero School to the Caño Negro Rural Commandos [Comandos Rurales] facilities for practice exercises included in the third and final phase of his training as a National Guardsman. During one of these practice exercises, the student died in an “unfortunate accident,” according to the version given by school authorities. 9. According to the official version given to the student’s family, at approximately 12:45 p.m., Johan Alexis was crossing a section of the “Special Soldier” field when he was hit by two projectiles from an AFAG M-61 machine gun. In the military exercise, the students crawled underneath barbed wire fencing while an instructor with an automatic weapon fired in their direction, over the fencing. The version presented to the family was that the student stood up for no reason and was hit by two shots on the right side of his body at the level of the clavicle. 10. The parents maintain that their son’s death was not accidental. They argue that a series of facts, elements, and circumstances compelled them to analyze the version given by the school authorities and they discovered that they had been the victims of concealment of information and had been given contradictory accounts, leading them to believe that the events had taken place intentionally. Among the circumstances they report are alleged inconsistencies in the information regarding the military authorities who participated in the exercise and compliance with orders related to it. Although the petitioners were informed that the exercise was carried out in compliance with orders and regulations, they subsequently received information indicating that certain instructions for conducting practice exercises had not been followed and that the location of the exercises had been changed. 11. The student’s family claimed that at the time of the incident, there were no medical or paramedical personnel on site, much less an ambulance to respond to any kind of emergency. Because of this, Johan was unable to receive timely care and the

Select target paragraph3