I INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND CAUSE OF ACTION 1. The case is submitted to the Court. On December 13, 2019, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court the case of The Teachers of Chañaral and other Municipalities v. the Republic of Chile (hereinafter “the State” or “Chile”). The Commission explained that the case involves the alleged violation of the right to judicial protection due to the failure to serve thirteen final, non-appealable judicial decisions handed down on behalf of 848 teachers.1 The Commission asked that the State be held responsible for violating the right to due process, right to property, and right to judicial protection established in Articles 8(1), 21, 25(1) and 25(2)(c) of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, in injury of 848 teachers. 2. Proceedings before the Commission. The following proceedings took place before the Commission: a) Petition. On November 23, 2005, the Commission received the originating petition, submitted by two law firms, Etcheberry/Rodríguez and Colombara Olmedo. b) Admissibility Report. On March 20, 2013, the Commission approved Admissibility report No. 28/13. c) Merits Report. On February 12, 2019, the Commission approved Merits Report No. 12/19, drawing a body of conclusions,2 and extended several recommendations to the State. d) Notification to the State. The State was notified of the Merits report on April 3, 2019 and given a term of two months to report back on adoption of the recommendations. The State replied to the Merits report on May 20, 2019, and since that date, has requested three time extensions for implementing the recommendations in the report. The Commission granted the State three time extensions and convened the parties to a working meeting during its 174th session. On December 3, 2019, the State argued that the events taking place at that time in Chile had hampered the operation of public offices and it had therefore been unable to provide a timely response; it stated that it would give its reply to the offer of an agreement on compliance by December 13, 2019, at the latest. After granting this extension, the Commission held that the State had not submitted information on concrete measures adopted to carry out the terms of the recommendations. 1 The cases are: (1) Benavides Montaña et al. v. the Municipality of Chañaral, Docket No. 18,629-1994 (80 teachers); (2) Aguilar Lazcano et al. v. the Municipality of Chanco, Docket No. 221-1993 (10 teachers); (3) Abarza Farías et al. v. the Municipality of Chanco, Docket No. 217-1993 (70 teachers); (4) Alegría Cancino et al. v. the Municipality of Pelluhue, Docket No. 218-1993 (28 teachers); (5) Aravena Espinoza et al. v. the Municipality of Pelluhue, Docket No. 222-1993 (4 teachers); (6) Bayer Torres et al. v. the Municipality of Parral, Docket No. 4,2741993 (6 teachers); (7) Bustamante Sánchez et al. v. the Municipality of Parral, Docket No. 4,071-1992 (27 teachers); (8) Belmar Montero et al. v. the Municipality of Parral, Docket No. 4,051-1992 (35 teachers); (9) Salazar Aravena et al. v. the Municipality of Parral, Docket No. 4,096-1992 (22 teachers); 10) Ramírez Ortiz et al. v. the Municipality of Vallenar, Docket No. 4,443-1993 (193 teachers); (11) Agurto Chien Juisan et al. v. the Municipality of Cauquenes, Docket No. 63-1993 (1 teacher); (12) Barra Henríquez et al. v. the Municipality of Cauquenes, Docket No. 123-1993 (36 teachers) and (13) Aguilera Machuca et al. v. the Municipality of Cauquenes, Docket No. 38-1993 (336 teachers). 2 The Commission concluded that the State was responsible for violating the following articles of the American Convention on Human Rights: 8(1) (right to judicial guarantees), 21 (right to property), 25(1) and 25(2) (right to judicial protection), read in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. 4