5 the Criminal Center Castro Castro.” This information was also requested to the petitioners, without the need to present official documents. 22. On November 1, 2001, after two extensions were granted, the State presented its arguments and evidence regarding the merits of the matter (supra para. 21). Likewise, It stated that it would complete its arguments regarding the merits of the matter during the hearing summoned for November 14, 2001 (infra para. 23). 23. On November 14, 2001 a hearing was held before the Commission on the merits of the case. 24. On October 20, 2003, after the granting of several extensions, Mrs. Mónica Feria Tinta presented her arguments regarding the case (supra para. 21). 25. On October 23, 2003 the Commission, pursuant to Article 50 of the Convention, approved Report Nº 94/03, in which it concluded that the State “is responsible for the violation of the rights to life, humane treatment, a fair trial, and judicial protection, enshrined in Articles 4, 5, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to the general obligation of respect and guarantee of human rights established in Article 1(1) of the same instrument in detriment of the victims individualized in paragraph 43 of [said] report.” The Commission also indicated that “the object of [… that] report trasc[ended] what referred to the enactment and application of antiterrorism legislation in Peru, in virtue of which some of the victims were imprisoned, since they were not subject of the facts claimed and proven.” Likewise, the Commission recommended that the State: “[p]erform a complete, effective, and impartial investigation within the domestic legislation, in order to establish the historic truth of the facts; prosecute and punish those responsible for the massacre committed against the inmates of the Criminal Center ‘Miguel Castro Castro’ of the city of Lima, between the 6 and 9 days of May 1992;” “[a]dopt the measures necessary to identify the bodies that have not yet been claimed and hand over their remains to their next of kin;” “[a]dopt the measures necessary so that those affected can receive an adequate reparation for the violations to human rights suffered due to the State’s actions;” and “[a]dopt the measures necessary to avoid similar facts from occurring again, in compliance of the duties of prevention and guarantee of fundamental rights acknowledged by the American Convention.” 26. On January 9, 2004 the Commission notified the State of the mentioned report and granted it a two-month period, as of the date of its transmission, to inform of the measures adopted in order to comply with the recommendations made. 27. On January 9, 2004 the Commission communicated to the petitioners the approval of the report (supra para. 25) pursuant to Article 50 of the Convention and it asked them to present, within a one-month period, their position regarding the presentation of the case before the Court. It also requested that they present the information of the victims; the powers of attorney that prove their quality of representatives; the documentary and testimonial evidence and expert reports additional to those presented during the processing of the case before the Commission, and their demands regarding reparations and costs. 28. On March 4, April 7, and July 9, 2004, the State requested extensions to inform the Commission of the compliance of the recommendations included in Report