2 4. After examining the available information, the Commission verified that the admissibility requirements set forth in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention have been met and it concluded that the State is responsible for violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 19 and 25 of the American Convention, in connection with the obligations set forth in Articles 1.1 and 2 of the same international instrument; as well as articles I.a) and I.b) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Dissapearence of Persons, to the detriment of the individuals listed in each section of the instant report. II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION 5. On July 1, 1999, Corporación Jurídica Libertad lodged the initial petition. On March 7, 1999, the IACHR informed the petitioners that the case was assigned the number 12.251. The petitioners submitted a communication, dated March 23, 2000. In a communication of June 7, 2000, the State provided its response. The petitioners submitted additional observations on June 27, 2000; October 6, 2000; January 20 and May 21, 2001; July 2, 2002; August 25, 2003; September 1, 2004 and March 2006. The State submitted additional observations on June 7, 2000; September 11, 2000; December 14, 2000 and April 19, 2006. These submissions were duly forwarded to the opposing parties. 6. On September 6, 2006, the petitioners requested the Commission to defer addressing admissibility until the decision on the merits and arrange for a hearing. On October 11, 2006, the Commission informed the Colombian State and the petitioners that it had decided to apply Article 37.3 of the Rules of Procedure in effect at the time and defer addressing admissibility until the discussion and decision on the merits of the matter. 7. After that procedural decision was made, the petitioners submitted additional observations on February 1, 2007, May 7, 2007 and August 27 and October 3, 2008. In response, the State submitted additional observations on November 27, 2006, April 20 and September 5, 2007, and January 23, May 13 and September 25, 2008. These submissions were duly forwarded to the opposing parties. 8. On October 23, 2008, a hearing on admissibility and the merits of the matter was held. The petitioners submitted additional observations on November 21, 2008 and November 30, 2009. While the State submitted additional observations on September 11 and 25, November 9 and December 31, 2009. 9. On April 21, 2010, the IACHR sent a communication to the parties placing itself at their disposal to help to reach a friendly settlement. In a communication of May 20, 2010, the petitioners expressed that it is not possible to engage in the friendly settlement process. The petitioners also submitted additional information in briefs dated June 24, July 12 and August 27, 2010. Whereas the State submitted additional observations on May 21, June 25, July 12, August 19, September 8 and October 25, 2010. III. POSITION OF THE PARTIES A. Position of the Petitioners 10. The petitioners described the forced disappearance of 16 individuals, including three children of two months, 12 and 15 years respectively; as well as an extrajudicial execution of one