8 23. On October 1st, 2001, the claimants informed that on September 3rd, 2001, the Fourth Penal Court of the First Circuit confirmed the resolution of the District Court, whereby the civil rights protection action was dismissed. The claimants indicated that said decision “marked the end of all internal remedies for a revision of the case.” 24. On October 10, 2001, the Inter-American Commission approved Report No. 81/01, whereby case No. 12.228 was declared admissible, “to the extent that it referred to alleged violations of rights protected by articles 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the American Convention”. In said report, the Commission pointed out that the State “did not allege […] non exhaustion of internal remedies during the initial stages of the proceedings [, i]n the opposite sense, it only did so on its third submission to the [Commission], after one hearing and more than one year after its first communication on this matter.” In this respect the Commission invoked the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court on the exception of non exhaustion of internal remedies, and considered that the State “waived [said] exception in this matter […], since it did not submit it within the terms legally established, nor did it submit it on its first procedural opportunity, that is, as part of its answer to the petition that gave rise to the process.” On October 18, 2001 the Commission brought said report to the knowledge of the parties and marked the start of the twomonth term allowed the claimants to submit their additional observations on the merits of the case. Likewise, in said communication the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the parties to arrive at a friendly settlement according to Article 48(1)(f) of the American Convention. Neither the claimants nor the State responded concerning the possibility to come to terms under the friendly settlement procedure in this case. 25. On December 17, 2001, the claimants requested an extension of the term to submit their observations on the merits of the case. On December 28, 2001, the Commission extended the term, as requested, for one month. 26. On January 28, 2002, the claimants submitted their final observations on the merits of the case. In their document, they provided an explanation of the facts in this case and of the legal arguments that supported their petition, and requested the Commission to “issue the report on the merits, where it will declare that Mexico is liable for the violation, against [Mr.] Alfonso Martín-del-Campo-Dodd, of the rights enshrined in articles 5, 7, 8 y 25 of the American Convention […,] all said articles in connection with the generic duty to protect and respect the rights enshrined in said Convention[; and] that it, in the same report, declare that the State […] has violated Article 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, to the detriment of [Mr.] Alfonso Martín-del-Campo-Dodd, 27. On January 29, 2002, the Commission, in conformity with Article 38(1) of its Rules of Procedure, transmitted said observations to the State and granted a term of two months for the submission of its respective final observations. 28. On April 04, 2002 the State submitted its observations on the merits of the case, whereby it pointed out that it complied with its duty to investigate the alleged incidents of torture experienced by Mr. Martín-del-Campo, to which effect “actions were undertaken at the Distrito Federal Attorney General’s Office, and at the Distrito Federal and National Human Rights Commissions, which led to the conclusion that sufficient elements to determine that [Mr.] Martín-del-Campo had been tortured had not been found.” The State reiterated that Mr. Alfonso Martín-del-Campo “has had