12. On November 16, 1998, Mr. Grande informed the Commission of a change in his legal representation. On November 30, 1998, the State requested an extension of time to present its observations. By notes of December 8, 1998, the Commission granted an additional two months, and informed the petitioners accordingly. On February 8, 1999, the State requested a further extension. By notes of February 18, 1999, the Commission granted another 30 days and so informed the petitioners. The State provided observations by means of a communication received on March 23, 1999, indicating that it was continuing to try to resolve the lack of internal regulation relative to the procedure of friendly settlement, and that there were in any case divergent views within the Government as to the viability of such a settlement. This was transmitted to the petitioner on April 22, 1999, with observations in response requested within 60 days. 13. By note received June 16, 2000, the petitioners presented additional information and requested that the Commission proceed to adopt a report on this matter under Article 50 of the Convention. This was transmitted to the State on July 11, 2000, with any observations in response requested within 30 days. On July 19, 2000, the petitioners reiterated their request that the Commission adopt a report. That information was transmitted to the State on August 24, 2000, with observations requested within 30 days. On August 14, 2000, the State requested an extension, and by note of August 15, 2000, was granted an additional 30 days. The petitioners submitted brief notes on September 5 and 9, 2000, which were incorporated in the case file. On October 26, 2000, the Commission addressed the State to reiterate its August 24, 2000 request for observations. 14. On December 4, 2000, the State submitted information to the effect that, given the acceptance by previous administrations of the possibility of seeking a friendly settlement, and the existence of divergent views on the feasibility of such a settlement within the current administration, the relevant areas were studying the issue with a view to adopting a unified position. This communication was transmitted to the petitioners on December 19, 2000, with any observations requested within 30 days. On September 25, 2001, the Commission received a brief communication from the petitioners reiterating their position and requesting that a report be adopted. This was transmitted to the State for its information by note of October 24, 2001. By note of December 10, 2001, the State reported that, because its competent authorities had determined that the petition presented no violation, it would no longer be possible for it to pursue a friendly settlement. 15. Finally, with respect to this issue of friendly settlement, the Commission wishes to note that the procedure contemplated under Article 48(f) of the Convention provides an excellent opportunity for the non-contentious resolution of complaints, and has served to the benefit of both parties in many cases. However, if the parties in a given matter indicate that the process is not progressing or cannot produce a settlement in conformity with the terms of Article 48(f), as is the situation with respect to the present petition, the Commission will deem the friendly settlement process concluded. III. POSITION OF THE PARTIES A. The Petitioners 16. For the purposes of this report, which examines the admissibility of the claims raised, the petitioner’s allegations may be summarized as follows. On July 28, 1980, the Argentine Federal Police initiated an investigation with respect to the Cooperativa de Crédito “Caja Murillo,” where Mr. Grande worked as the Chief of Credits, concerning alleged criminal activity by the management. He indicates that he cooperated by supplying information that first day, and only learned later that the police had not been acting pursuant to judicial order. The next day, he was requested to appear at the Banks Division of the Federal Police in the Argentine National Bank. He 3