- 17 - denunciations or complaints of violation of this Convention by a State Party.” See, similarly, Articles 23 and 24 of the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commission, adopted by the Commission at its 137th regular session held from October 28 to November 13, 2009, and amended on September 2, 2011, and at its 147th regular session held from March 8 to 22, 2013, entering into force on August 1, 2013. Article 48(1)(f) of the Convention establishes that “1. When the Commission receives a petition or communication alleging violation of any of the rights protected by this Convention, it shall proceed as follows: […] (f) The Commission shall place itself at the disposal of the parties concerned with a view to reaching a friendly settlement of the matter on the basis of respect for the human rights recognized in this Convention.” In this regard, the relevant part of Article 40(5) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure establishes that: “Prior to adopting th[e] report [on a friendly settlement], the Commission shall verify whether the victim of the alleged violation or, as the case may be, his or her successors, have consented to the friendly settlement agreement.” Furthermore, Article 50(1) of the American Convention establishes that, “[i]f a settlement is not reached, the Commission shall, within the time limit established by its Statute, draw up a report setting forth the facts and stating its conclusions. […].” Also, Article 44(3) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure establishes that “[a]fter the deliberation and vote on the merits of the case, the Commission shall proceed as follows: […] It shall notify the petitioner of the adoption of the report and its transmittal to the State. In the case of States Parties to the American Convention that have accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court, upon notifying the petitioner, the Commission shall give him or her one month to present his or her position as to whether the case should be submitted to the Court. When the petitioner is interested in the submission of the case, he or she should present the following: a. the position of the victim or the victim’s family members, if different from that of the petitioner […].” 26 In this regard, see, Case of Vereda La Esperanza v. Colombia, supra, paras. 37 to 39, as well as Articles 35, 39 and 40 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure which require the Commission to provide information on “the duly accredited representatives of the alleged victims” when submitting the case; that the submission of the case be notified to “the alleged victim, his or her representatives or the inter-American defender, if applicable,” and that “the alleged victim or his or her representatives” should submit a brief with pleadings, motions and evidence. 27 In the communication sent to J.R., he was advised that if he did not respond to the Court’s communication (either to request further information, clarify doubts, request an extension, or indicate his consent), it would be understood that he did not wish to be a party to the case. 28 The representatives explained that Osmín Tobar Ramírez had contacted J.R. through Facebook, but the latter had indicated that he “did not want to know anything about these proceedings.” They indicated that, following this, they had sent a communication to J.R. asking him to confirm what he had indicated to Osmín Tobar Ramírez, but had not received any response to date. 29