2. The petitioners complain that the alleged acts set forth in this petition constitute a violation of several provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter "the Convention" or "the American Convention”): the right to life (Article 4); the right to humane treatment (Article 5); the right to a fair trial (Article 8); the right to equal protection before the law (Article 24); the right to judicial protection (Article 25); and the right to progressive development of economic, social, and cultural rights (Article 26) in conjunction with the obligation to respect the rights referred to in Article 1(1) of the American Convention. 3. The State responded to these allegations by submitting a report on the implementation of precautionary measures granted by the Commission to the beneficiaries. The report argues that the State did act on the petitions put forth by the parties, and urges them to exhaust domestic legal and political remedies. 4. Having analyzed the positions of the parties in compliance with the requirements of Articles 46 and 47 of the Convention, and without prejudging the merits of the case, the Commission declares the petition admissible. The Commission further resolves to notify the parties of its decision, to publish it, and include it in the Annual Report of the OAS General Assembly. II. PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION 5. The IACHR registered the petition received on August 26, 2003 as docket number P 642/03. Following its preliminary analysis, on April 21, 2004 the Commission forwarded a copy in pertinent part to the State, giving it two months to submit the information as per Article 30(3) of the Rules of Procedure. 6. On June 22, 2004, the Commission received the State’s response and on July 7, 2004 duly transmitted it to the petitioners, granting them one month to submit any pertinent observations on the matter. On August 9, 2004, the petitioners requested a seven day extension to present their comments; it was granted that same day. On August 17, 2004, the petitioners submitted their observations to the State’s response. In a note dated October 4, 2004, the petitioners requested the inclusion of ten persons infected with HIV/AIDS who also joined in filing an appeal for legal protection (amparo), arguing that by doing so they exhausted domestic remedies in the case. The note was forwarded to the State for comment, which was given to the Commission on March 4, 2005 2