3 extension on June 29, 2000, which the IACHR granted on July 24, 2000. Finally, the petitioners presented the information requested in a communication received on July 18, 2000, which was relayed to the State on August 3, 2000. The State submitted the information requested in a communication dated August 29, 2000, which was transmitted to the petitioners on September 21, 2000. On September 11, 2000, the IACHR requested the State for photocopies of the criminal proceedings. The State requested an extension in a communication of October 13, 2000, which the IACHR granted on November 8, 2000. The State submitted observations in a communication dated December 29, 2000, which was brought to the attention of the petitioners in a communication dated February 7, 2001. 10. In a communication dated January 17, 2001, the petitioners requested a hearing, which was granted by the IACHR in a communication dated January 31, 2001, and scheduled for March 2, 2001. On August 10, 2001, the petitioners requested that a working meeting be held during the 113th regular session of the IACHR, which the IACHR granted in a communication of August 30, 2001, and scheduled for October 3, 2001. The IACHR subsequently postponed that meeting until November 14, 2001, by means of a communication dated October 10, 2001, in order to enable the parties to discuss the possibility of initiating a friendly settlement procedure, which did not formalized. 11. In communications dated November 19 and 20, 2001, the Commission requested information from the petitioners and the State, respectively. The State responded in a communication dated December 7, 2001, which was sent to the petitioners on January 9, 2002. The Commission requested updated information from both parties on December 12, 2002. On March 23, 2004, the IACHR informed the petitioners that it had decided to proceed in accordance with Article 37(3) of its Rules of Procedure then in force and requested them to submit additional observations on the merits of the matter. In a communication dated May 14, 2004, the petitioners requested an extension of 45 days, which the IACHR granted in a communication of May 27, 2004. In a communication dated November 18, 2004, the IACHR informed the State of its decision to apply Article 37(3) of its Rules of Procedure then in force and requested that it submit its additional comments on merits. 12. The State presented its additional observations on merits by means of a communication of January 21, 2005. On April 26, 2007, the IACHR requested both parties to provide it with updated information. The State sought an extension in a communication of May 29, 2007, which the IACHR granted on July 3, 2007. The petitioners requested the IACHR to grant them an extension in a communication of May 25, 2007, which was granted in a communication dated August 6, 2007. 13. The State submitted information in a communication dated July 25, 2007, which was relayed to the petitioners in a communication of August 13, 2007. On August 2, 2010, the IACHR requested the petitioners and the State for updated information. The State presented information in a communication of September 2, 2010, and the petitioners did likewise in a communication dated October 5, 2010. This information was transmitted to the petitioners and the State, respectively, on December 7, 2010. 14. The State presented additional information in a communication dated January 10, 2011, which was relayed to the petitioners on January 11, 2011. The petitioners submitted comments on the State’s brief in a communication of February 11, 2011, which was transmitted to the State on February 15, 2011. The State presented comments in a communication of March 21, 2011, which was transmitted to the petitioners in a communication of April 28, 2011. Also on April 28, 2011, the Commission requested the parties for a copy of the principal procedural documents in the judicial proceedings. The petitioners submitted their brief on May 16, 2011, and the State did likewise on May 17, 2011. The respective briefs were relayed to the parties on May 19, 2011. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. The Petitioners 15. In their initial petition, the petitioners reported the detention/disappearance of 15 individuals, of whom seven were children: the sisters Yessenia Osnayo Hilario (age six years), Miriam Osnayo Hilario (age three