alleged victims have been able to consider whether the State’s actions constitute an appropriate remedy. In this regard, the Court has indicated that the procedures established in Articles 48 to 50 of the Convention “offer the parties the possibility of adopting the necessary provisions to resolve the situation in question, with due respect for the human rights established by the Convention.” 31 Furthermore, the Court has emphasized that: The procedures under Articles 48 to 50 have a more extensive purpose as regards the international protection of human rights: compliance by the States with their obligations and, more specifically, with their legal obligation to cooperate in the investigation and resolution of the violations of which they may be accused. […] The procedure described contains a mechanism designed, in stages of increasing intensity, to encourage the State to fulfill its obligation to cooperate in the resolution of the case. The State is thus offered the opportunity to settle the matter before it is brought to the Court, and the petitioner has the chance to obtain an appropriate remedy more quickly and simply. We are dealing with mechanisms whose operation and effectiveness will depend on the circumstances of each case and, above all, on the nature of the rights affected, the characteristics of the acts denounced, and the willingness of the government to cooperate in the investigation and to take the necessary steps to resolve it. 32 31. Regarding the instant case, first, the Court has verified that owing to the position assumed by the parties during the proceedings before the Commission with regard to a possible friendly settlement, it is not possible to establish an exact date on which it can be determined that a settlement of this nature would not be reached. The Court considers that the case file does not reveal that, on May 16, 2001, the relevant procedure had concluded before the Commission. Even though the representatives stated that they did not wish to continue with this stage of the proceedings, there are elements in the case file that suggest that the friendly settlement procedure continued. After that date, the representatives indicated their interest in continuing the discussions towards a possible settlement of the case. 33 For example, the day after the communication of May 16, 2001, the representatives submitted to the “consideration” of the Inter-American Commission the possibility of sending a letter directly to the President of the Dominican Republic, “in order to try and move the case of Narciso González towards a satisfactory settlement.” In addition, in a communication presented to the Commission on May 24, 2001, the representatives proposed the creation of a “Plenipotentiary Committee” in which the Inter-American Commission would “be present”; this committee should be created “[i]mmediately” by means of “an agreement duly formalized before the [Inter-American Commission]” to “monitor the actions taken by the State” in relation to the investigation of this case. Moreover, although the State indicated that, after April 25, 1997, it “had shown no intention of reaching a friendly settlement,” the case file reveals that, after this date, on several occasions, it informed the Commission that it was committed to taking measures aimed at resolving the instant case. 34 For example, in a brief of February 25, 1998, the State 31 32 Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections, supra note 17, para. 58. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections, supra note 17, paras. 59 and 60. 33 Cf. inter alia, report of the “Truth Commission” organization of February 25, 1998, addressed to the InterAmerican Commission; copy of the interactive edition of the Diario Listín of April 2, 1998; communications of May 16, 17 and 24, 2001, of Alberto García, S.J., member of the “Truth Commission” organization addressed to the Inter-American Commission (file of attachments to the application, attachment 3, folios 619, 653, 760 to 762 and 765 to 767), and record of the hearing before the Inter-American Commission of October 6, 1997 (file of attachments to the application, attachment 2, folios 3696 and 3699). 34 Among others, the Court notes the communication of June 26, 2008, in which the State informed the Inter-American Commission that the Public Prosecution Service had adopted the decision to reopen the case and that this had been announced in a press conference at which the family of the presumed victim and their representatives were present, and added that it was “committed to conclude this case in the domestic jurisdiction and [that the said decision is] proof of this” (file of attachments to the application, attachment 3, folios 657, 816, 818 and 953). Also, Cf. communications of the Permanent Mission of the Dominican Republic to the Organization of 13