2 II. PROCESSING WITH THE COMMISSION 5. The Inter-American Commission received the original petition on November 8, 1994, and registered it as case number 11,576. 6. The Commission forwarded the relevant parts of the original petition to the Ecuadorian State on March 13, 1995, and asked that it present its observations within 90 days. On July 10, 1995, the Commission reiterated its request to the State and asked it to provide whatever information it deemed pertinent within 30 days. 7. On August 3, 1995, information was received from the State in which it reported that as of that date, it had not yet received from the national authorities the reports it needed to provide the information the Commission was requesting. On February 8 and July 9, 1996, the Commission again asked the State to provide information. 8. On April 10, 1996, the petitioners submitted additional information pertaining to the case. On August 15, 1996, the Commission forwarded that additional information to the State and asked that it present its observations within 60 days. 9. The State submitted its observations concerning the initial petition on September 5, 1996. On November 5, 1996, the Commission forwarded the relevant parts of the State’s information to the petitioners and asked that they submit their observations within 45 days. 10. On January 31, 1997, a communication was received from the petitioners enclosing their observations on the information provided by the State. This communication was sent to the State on February 20, 1997, with the request that it present its observations within one month. On July 17, 2001, the Commission again asked the State to send its observations. 11. On September 27, 2001, the State filed its observations regarding the case’s admissibility. On October 5, 2001, the Commission forwarded the State’s observations to the petitioners and asked that they send any new or additional information they might have within 30 days. 12. On April 11, 2003, the Commission informed the petitioners that, in application of Article 37(3) of its Rules of Procedure then in force, it had decided to defer treatment of the case’s admissibility until the debate and decision on the merits. The Commission therefore asked the petitioners to submit their observations on the merits within two months. 13. On August 12, 2003, the petitioners presented their observations on the merits. This communication was forwarded to the State on August 20, 2003. That same day, the State was informed that the case was being processed in accordance with Article 37(3) of the Rules of Procedure. The Commission therefore asked the State to submit whatever observations it deemed pertinent within two months. 14. On October 9, 2003, the State requested a 30-day extension. The Commission acceded to the State’s request on October 15, 2003.