unpunished. problem. This impunity, the petitioners contend, is a growing 3. On June 20, 2005, the State filed a belated response to the petition, asserting that the internal legal remedies to settle the case had not been exhausted. It therefore entered the pertinent objection. The State reported that the District Court of Pilar, in the state of Paraiba was hearing a case against those indicted for the alleged crime, and had not yet handed down a ruling; the State reported that the court was still within the time frame allowed by law to decide a case. The State also pointed out that once a decision was delivered, a number of appeals were permissible in the domestic courts and would have to be exhausted before the case could be brought to an international forum. The State further asserted that the petitioners had offered no evidence of any civil suit lodged with the appropriate body to claim any damages and injuries sustained by the victim. For all these reasons, the State claims, the petition must be dismissed and the Commission’s case closed. 4. After examining the parties positions in light of the admissibility requirements established in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, the Commission decided to declare the case admissible with regard to Articles 4, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in connection with the general obligation contained in Article 1.1 thereof. Accordingly, the Commission decided to notify the parties, to publish this admissibility report and to include it in its Annual Report. II. PROCESSING WITH THE COMMISSION 5. On February 17, 2005, the Commission notified the State that a petition had been lodged against it, and forwarded it the pertinent parts thereof. It also informed the State that under Article 30.3 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, the State was to submit its response within two months counted from the date on which the Commission’s request was transmitted. 6. The State’s belated response to the petition was dated June 20, 2005. 7. On August 5, 2005, the State’s observations on the petition were forwarded to the petitioners who, by note dated August 23, 2005, requested an extension of the time period allotted to them to file their observations on the State’s response. 8. On September 21, 2005, the petitioners were granted the extension they requested for filing their observations on the State’s response and were notified of the decision that same day. 2