23. The petitioners actively pursued a process aimed at arriving at a possible friendly settlement of this matter. Given the obstacles reported by the State, however, since at least June of 2000, the petitioners have expressly requested that the Commission move forward with the procedures set forth in the Convention and Rules of Procedure to determine the admissibility of the petition and adopt a report on the merits. B. The State 24. In its initial response, the State recounted the procedural history of the matter of “Grande, Jorge F c/ Estado Nacional (Ministerio de Educación y Justicia) s/ Cobro” before the Argentine judiciary, indicating that domestic remedies had been exhausted with the April 12, 1994 decision of the Supreme Court of Justice rejecting the recurso de queja filed by Mr. Grande. The State noted that, while the court of first instance had awarded an indemnity of $150,000 on the basis that the police had acted illegally in searching for and seizing documents absent any written judicial order, the majority of the Second Chamber of the National Chamber of Appeals for Federal Administrative Contentious Matters had disagreed with that evaluation. The decision at first instance was revoked, the State indicated, because the appellate court found that the judiciary bore no responsibility for the challenged actions of the police. 25. The State indicated in that initial response that, in conformity with its practice of cooperation with the Commission, it was disposed to initiate proceedings to seek a friendly settlement of the matter denounced in accordance with the terms of Article 48 of the American Convention. The State indicated that it wished to reserve its response on the questions of law raised in the petition. 26. With respect to the extensive proceedings carried out in search of a possible friendly settlement, the State repeatedly referred to two barriers. First, it noted the absence of internal norms available to effectuate such a settlement. Second, it reported that the various offices charged with review of the matter were in disagreement as the legality and feasibility of arriving at such an agreement. While the Commission received documentation reflecting certain of these divergent positions, until the State’s submission of December 10, 2001, the latter had taken no further official position either on the issue of friendly settlement or with respect to the admissibility and merits of the petitioners’ claims. 27. In its December 10, 2001 presentation, the State rejected the possibility of further negotiations aimed at the friendly settlement of the matter on the basis that its authorities had concluded that the petition presented no violation. The State indicated, first, that the petition is inadmissible because the violations alleged predate its ratification of the American Convention. It noted that the search complained of took place on July 28, 1980, while the American Convention entered into force for Argentina on September 5, 1984. The State maintained that the allegations upon which the petition is based, with respect to the search, detention and supposed torture, fall outside the temporal scope of the Commission’s competence. 28. Further, the State argued that the petitioners have failed to allege facts tending to characterize the violation of a protected right because Mr. Grande consented to the initial search. Although the Federal Chamber of Appeals considered that the lack of a written order nonetheless nullified the search and any evidence thereby obtained, the State indicated that the doctrine of the Supreme Court affirms that consent may legitimate a search carried out without a warrant. The State argued that Mr. Grande can hardly complain about a search initiated pursuant to his denunciation, and with which he initially cooperated. 29. The State emphasized that Mr. Grande neither challenged the criminal proceedings brought against him, nor the legality of the search itself. Rather, it was another defendant in the same matter who challenged the legality of the search. The State argued that Mr. Grande remained 5