that its domestic legislation has an appropriate mechanism for resolving the complaint set forth in this petition. 4. Without prejudging the merits of the case, the IACHR hereby concludes that the case is admissible, as it meets the requirements set forth in Article 46 of the Convention, with respect to Víctor Acuña Dávila, Alberto Esteban Antonio Chala, Justo Esteban Azcárate Noguera, Abraham Cano Rebaza, Marco Antonio Castro Martinez, Gladis María Delgado Arriola, Rogelio Delgado Quijano, David Desiglioli Sánchez, Juan Leslie Espinoza Eyzaguirre, Jorge Federico García Farías, Carlos Alberto Lizarbe Nieto, Nancy Giomar Mac’Gregor Alvis, Juan Carlos Marraguerra Ayllon, Honorato Mayorga Blanco, Ernesto Meza Vargas, José Ricardo Nolasco Milla, Fernando Antonio Padilla Cancino, Cecilio Alberto Ríos Rodríguez, Eduardo Rivadeneyra Alva, Antonio Tomás Rodríguez Valdivia, Isi Antonia Rosas Meléndez, Renzo Torero Lizarbe, José Fermín Urcia Cruzado, Alfredo Vásquez Colacci, and Rufino Ysique Reque. The Commission has therefore decided to notify the parties of this decision and continue to examine the merits of the case with respect to the alleged violations of the right to a fair trial (Article 8) and the right to judicial protection (Article 25), established in the American Convention, in relation to the general obligation to respect and guarantee rights set forth in Article 1.1 and the duty to undertake the measures enshrined in Article 2 of the Convention. II. PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION 5. On November 2, 1998, the Commission received a complaint lodged by the National Workers Federation of the Empresa Nacional de Puertos, S.A. On July 10, 2001, it asked the petitioners to present additional information on their complaint, which they did through notes dated June 28 and August 23, 2001, August 18 and November 4, 2002, April 16 and August 26, 2003, May 11, 2004, and January 24 and March 1, 2005. 6. On April 8, 2005, the IACHR transmitted the petition to the State, giving it two months to submit its comments. On June 16, 2005, the State presented its position on the petitioners’ complaint. On June 28, 2005, the Commission provided the State with the additional information from the petitioners. On August 11, 2005, the State presented its comments on that information. On October 4, 2005, the petitioners asked the IACHR to make itself available to the parties to explore a possible friendly settlement agreement. Through a letter dated November 11, 2005, the Commission made itself available to the parties to begin the friendly settlement process. 7. On March 8, 2006, the IACHR held a working meeting at its headquarters with the parties to explore their positions on a possible friendly settlement agreement. On February 13, 2006, the petitioners informed the Commission that three of the alleged victims did not wish to continue with the proceedings before the Commission.2 On April 5, 2006, the IACHR asked the State to provide notification, within one month, of its position on the agreement of understanding discussed by the parties at the meeting. On August 11, 2006, the Commission received additional information from the petitioners. On September 5, 2006, the petitioners asked the IACHR to convene a working meeting. On October 20, 2006 that meeting was held at Commission headquarters, with both parties. On March 9, 2007, the petitioners presented new information on the case, which was forwarded to the State through a note dated March 20, 2007. On June 13 and July 26, 2007, the 2 Gloria Cahua Ríos, Cesar Bravo Garvich, and Ernesto Yovera Álvarez. 2