period that are duly founded. However, it shall not grant extensions that exceed four months from the date of transmission of the first request for information sent to the State. […] 5. Prior to deciding upon the admissibility of the petition, the Commission may invite the parties to submit additional observations, either in writing or in a hearing, as provided for in Chapter VI of these Rules of Procedure. 6. Once it has received the observations, or at the end of the time set for them to be received, the Commission shall verify whether the grounds for the petition exist or remain. If it finds that they do not exist or no longer remain, it shall order the file to be closed. 77. As can be seen in the case file, the Commission received the petition on February 19, 200358 and registered it as petition number P-0136/2003 on March 3, de 2003.59 On September 9, 2003, it forwarded the relevant sections of the petition to Peru and gave the State two months to reply.60 The State was then given a time extension,61 after which it submitted its answering brief to the petition on December 1, de 2003. 62 The petitioners filed their brief of observations to the State’s reply on December 10, 2003. 63 The Commission approved Admissibility Report No. 13/04 on February 27, 2004.64 78. The Court finds, on this basis, that the Commission complied with this provision of its Rules of Procedure and there are no grounds to suggest that it could have caused a violation of the State’s right to defense. Therefore, the instant case presents no postulates that the Court should review the proceeding before the Commission. The Court denies the preliminary objection brought by the State. E. Fifth preliminary objection: “Objection for omission of relevant material” Arguments by the State, the Commission, and the representatives 79. The State argued that, once it learned about the statement made by Hidetaka Ogura, it undertook a criminal investigation which led to two criminal trials. It added that one of the matters addressed by both the Commission and the representatives was the fact that the State had not conducted the proper procedures after the military operation to secure evidence and determine the cause of death of the MRT members. The State said that “it acted on its own motion to carry out a number of procedures immediately after the military operation, and although they could be considered insufficient, it later corrected any omissions it may have Cf. Brief of the initial petition submitted to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on February 19, 2003 (case file of the proceedings before the Commission, volume III, folios 1707 to 1716). 58 Cf. Communication from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, March 3, 2003 (case file of the proceeding before the Commission, volume III, folios 1821). 59 60 Cf. Communication from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, September 9, 2003 (case file of the proceeding before the Commission, volume III, folios 1823). Cf. Communication from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, November 11, 2003 (case file of the proceeding before the Commission, volume III, folios 1693). 61 Cf. Report 77-2003-JUS/CNDH-SE of December 1, 2003 (case file of the proceedings before the Commission, volume III, folios 1632 to 1641). 62 Cf. Petitioners’ brief submitted to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, December 10, 2003 (case file of the proceeding before the Commission, volume III, folios 1586 to 1588). 63 Cf. Admissibility Report 13/04 by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, February 27, 2004 (case file of the proceedings before the Commission, volume III, folios 1613 to 1627). 64