requested within 90 days. By note of that same date, the petitioners were informed that the processing of the petition had been initiated. 6. By a note dated February 14, 2000, the State requested an extension to submit its response. By notes of February 24, 2000, the Commission granted the State an additional 45 days, and informed the petitioners that this had been done. By note of April 11, 2000, the State requested an additional extension. By notes of April 24, 2000, the Commission granted an extension until May 9, 2000, and informed the petitioners accordingly. 7. On May 8, 2000, the Commission received a note from the State dated May 4, 2000, indicating that the subject of the petition had been addressed by the domestic courts, and that relevant information had been requested from the corresponding authorities. Accordingly, the State requested an exceptional extension in which to respond, in the understanding that it had not accepted any of the petitioners’ contentions of law or fact. The Commission responded with a note of May 16, 2000, indicating that the period provided for in Article 34(6) of its then-applicable Regulations had expired on May 9, 2000.1 8. On August 28, 2000, the petitioners addressed the Commission in order to request a hearing. By note of September 13, 2000, the Commission indicated that it would be unable to grant the hearing due to the large volume of requests already accepted. In a communication dated December 26, 2000, the petitioners requested that the Commission apply the terms of Article 42 of its then applicable Regulations, providing that, in the absence of a response by the State, the Commission could presume the facts alleged in the petition to be true, as long as those were consistent with other available information. 9. By note of February 1, 2001, the petitioners reiterated their request that the facts alleged be presumed true, and asserted that, by reason of its failure to respond, the State had waived its chance to controvert the admissibility of the petition. Receipt of this and the previous communication were acknowledged by note of March 26, 2001. 10. By note of March 23, 2001, the State presented information in response to petition 12.221. The State indicated that it had directed three requests for information to the Provincial authorities, and that the latter had responded in September of 2000, with the indication that their delay had been due to the requests having been filed with another case. The State indicated that domestic remedies had not been exhausted and that the presumption of truth provided for in the event of a State’s failure to respond did not apply. 11. The State’s communication was transmitted to the petitioners on May 25, 2001, with any observations in response requested within one month. On June 25, 2001, the petitioners responded, contesting the assertions of the State. The petitioners’ observations were transmitted to the State by note of August 17, 2001, with any observations in response requested within one month. By note of August 8, 2001, the petitioners requested a hearing to discuss the admissibility of the present petition. By note of September 5, 2001, the Commission indicated that it was unable to accept the request. 12. By note of September 26, 2001, the State submitted additional information and arguments. A copy of the judicial case file against the person formally accused was received on October 24, 2001. These materials were transmitted to the petitioners on October 29, 2001, with any observations in response requested within one month. By a note received on November 29, 2001, the petitioners requested an extension in which to file their observations. They were granted until February 15, 2002. In the interim, by note of January 22, 2002, the petitioners requested a 1 The Rules of Procedure currently in effect entered into force on May 1, 2001. 2