4 6. The State submitted its answer on May 25, 1994. The State’s brief was forwarded to the petitioners, who submitted their observations on July 21, 1994. The Commission forwarded the petitioners’ observations to the State on August 31, 1994; the State responded on December 22. Both the petitioners and the State forwarded other submissions to the Commission concerning the status of the investigations and domestic court proceedings. The pertinent parts of those submissions were sent to opposing side. 7. On October 8, 1996, the Commission held a hearing where the parties made their oral arguments on the facts in the case and the applicable law. 8. On February 20, 1998, the Commission approved Report No. 10/98, pursuant to Article 50 of the Convention, and forwarded it to the State on March 6 of that year. In the operative part of that report, the Commission recommended the following: 119. That the State of Colombia undertake a serious, impartial and effective investigation of the facts denounced, in order to be able to clarify the events of January 23, 1991, and prepare an official report detailing the circumstances of the violations and the responsibility for them. 120. That the State of Colombia bring to trial all those responsible so that they may be punished. 121. That the State of Colombia adopt measures to properly redress the violations proven, including compensation to the victims’ next of kin who have not yet received compensation. 9. On May 12, 1998, the Commission received a note from the State wherein it requested a 45-day extension to reply to Report 10/98. On May 14, the Commission informed the parties that the State had been given a ten-day extension. 10. On May 26, 1998, the State formulated a proposal for a friendly settlement, which the Commission conveyed to the petitioners. They filed their comments on May 29, 1998. In that proposal the State pointed out that it did not agree with “all” the observations and conclusions contained in Report No. 10/98, particularly on the question of exhaustion of local remedies and the application of international humanitarian law. It also indicated that it was planning to set up a committee to move the criminal investigation forward. 11. On June 2, 1998, the State and the petitioners advised the Commission that they had agreed upon a 30-day deadline to begin negotiations aimed at arriving at a friendly settlement; they therefore requested that the time periods running under Article 51(1) of the American Convention be suspended. 12. On July 1, 1998, the petitioners informed the Commission that for the time being, the conditions were not there for arriving at a friendly settlement. They therefore requested that the Commission restart the suspended time periods and resume proceedings in the case. That information was conveyed to the State. 13. The Commission filed the application in this case with the Inter-American Court (supra, paragraph 1) on July 6, 1998. IV