3 7. On April 1, 1999, in view of the State's failure to reply, the Commission granted an additional 30-day term and warned that it might invoke Article 42 of its Rules of Procedure, presuming that the claims made in the petition were accurate. On May 1, 2000, the Commission granted the State 30 more days to submit requested information on the petition. 8. On June 29, 2000, the State reported that, according to the Attorney General of the State of Río Grande do Norte (Procuraduría General de Justicia del State of Rio Grande do Norte), the case of the death of Gilson Nogueira de Carvalho was currently at the stage of pronúncia, in which the presiding judge finds convincing evidence that a crime was committed, as well as evidence of who committed it. The presiding judge in the instant case confirmed that such evidence did exist and delivered a ruling of pronúncia, ordering a jury trial for the case. The State also noted that, because the Office of the Public Prosecutor differed with the presiding judge's opinion, it would be up to the Court of Justice of the State of Rio Grande do Norte to determine whether the ruling was in order. 9. On October 2, 2000, during its 108th Regular Session, the Commission adopted Admissibility Report No. 61/00, declaring that the petition was admissible as filed and stating, among other things, that, “the State’s silence [on the exhaustion of domestic remedies] in this case constitutes a tacit waiver of the right to invoke this objection.” The report was transmitted to the petitioners and to the State on November 15, 2000. 10. On August 29, 2003, the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the parties in keeping with the procedure for friendly settlement. On October 1, 2003, the petitioners stated their wish to continue addressing the merits of the case. The State made no comment. 11. On March 10, 2004, during its 119th Regular Session, the Inter-American Commission adopted Report on the Merits No. 22/04. In its report, the Inter-American Commission stated that “the petitioners allege a body of facts that were not contested by the State[, and if the State] does not contest the merits or produce evidence calling them into question, the Commission can presume these allegations to be true, so long as there is no convincing evidence that may lead it to conclude otherwise.” The Commission concluded, inter alia, that the State was responsible for violating the rights embodied in Article 4 (Right to Life); Article 8 (Right to a Fair Trial); and Article 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, all of them in reference to Article 1(1) of the pact, and recommended that the State adopt a number of measures to rectify these violations. 12. On April 13, 2004, the Inter-American Commission transmitted Report on the Merits No. 22/04 to the State and set a two-month deadline for the State to report back on measures it had adopted to comply with the recommendations. The State twice requested and received extensions to this term and accepted, expressly and irrevocably, that the granting of the extensions overrode the time period specified in Article 51(1) of the Convention for submitting the case to the Court. That same day, the Commission notified the petitioners that the Report had been adopted and transmitted to the State and asked them to express their position on submitting the case to the Inter-American Court. On May 18, 2004, the petitioners asked the Commission to submit the case to the Court. 13. On August 10 and October 13, 2004, the State submitted progress reports on its compliance with the recommendations made in Report on the Merits No. 22/04. Among other things, it noted that the Office of the Public Prosecutor, claiming absolute nullity, had appealed the decision of the jury trial to acquit the only suspect in the death of Gilson