3 10. On August 4, 1998, the Commission opened case No. 12,038, forwarded the pertinent parts of the petition to the State and requested it to provide information within 90 days. On November 11, 1998, after an extension had been granted, Peru sent its response. 11. On February 4, 1999, two persons asked to be considered co-petitioners in case 11,830 (supra para. 5). Also, on October 20, 1999, the Lima Lawyers’ Professional Association asked to be considered a co-petitioner in the case and submitted notes from 15 alleged victims requesting this institution to represent them in the same case. 12. On June 9, 2000, applying the provisions of Article 40(2) of its Rules of Procedure in force at the time, the Commission decided to joinder cases Nos. 11,830 and 12,038, so as to process them both under the file of case No. 11,830. At the same time, the Commission notified this decision to Peru and to all the petitioners. 13. On June 15, 2000, the Commission adopted report No. 52/00, in which it declared the petition admissible as regards the possible violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. This report was notified to the State and the petitioners on June 27, 2000. 14. On July 11, 2000, the Commission made itself available to the parties in order to reach a friendly settlement. On August 11, 2000, the petitioner, Adolfo Fernández Saré, asked for an extension in view of the meetings that were being held with the State “to find mechanisms that [would] allow [them] to reach a friendly settlement.” On August 11 and October 1, 2000, the State requested an extension of the period granted in order “to continue exploring the possibility of initiating a friendly settlement procedure.” 15. On October 13, 2000, the Commission held a hearing on the case. On November 20 that year, the State declared that it was not interested in continuing the friendly settlement procedure and requested that the case should be filed. This communication was forwarded to the petitioners’ representatives who presented their comments in communications of February 5, 7 and 12, 2001. 16. In response to the request of the alleged victims’ representatives, and in accordance with the provisions of Article 38(3) of its Rules of Procedure, the Commission convened the parties to a hearing during its 116th regular session. The hearing was held on October 14, 2002. 17. On October 2, 2003, the State advised that the “Multisectoral Commission responsible for drawing up the final settlement proposal concerning case No. 11,830” had concluded its sessions on April 7, 2003, without having reached a friendly settlement. 18. On October 19, 2004, having examined the positions of the State and the petitioners, the Commission adopted Report on Merits No. 78/04, in which it concluded: That the State […] is responsible for violating the right to judicial protection embodied in Article 25(1), the right to judicial guarantees embodied in Article 8(1) and the obligation to adopt domestic legal provisions contained in Article 2 of the American Convention, to the detriment of the 257 employees dismissed from Congress […]. In addition, the