6. On April 17, 2001 the petitioners presented a communication to the Commission in which they formally expressed their consent to the inclusion of this case in the friendly settlement procedure already in progress. However, without prejudice to the foregoing, they requested that the Commission give consideration in its examination to the specific aspects of the petition concerning the position of Eduardo Kimel under both criminal and civil law. 7. On July 30, 2001 the State sent a communication to the IACHR in the framework of the friendly settlement procedure in connection with petition 12.128, and forwarded a copy of a draft bill presented by the Executive Branch to the Congress to reform the provisions on the crimes of libel and slander contained in Argentina’s Civil and Criminal Codes, in order to make them compatible with the object and purpose of the American Convention. That communication was transmitted to the petitioners on August 16, 2001, and they were given one month to submit observations. 8. On September 27, 2001 the petitioners sent a note to the Executive Secretariat in which they refer to the draft bill presented by the Executive Branch to the Congress with a view to reforming the provisions on the crimes of libel and slander contained in Argentina’s Civil and Criminal Codes. The pertinent portions of that communication were brought to the attention of the State on October 12, 2001, and it was given one month to present the information it deemed pertinent in that regard. 9. At the request of the petitioners, the Commission called the parties to a working meeting that was held on November 15, 2001 in the framework of the 113th session of the IACHR. In the course of that meeting, the parties discussed the need for the State to define its position with respect to the possibility of disposing of the Kimel case in a friendly settlement procedure. The issue of the draft bill was also addressed at a meeting held during the working visit conducted by the country rapporteur in July 2002. 10. In a communication of August 15, 2002 the petitioners requested that the Commission ask the State to provide up-to-date information on the processing of the draft parliamentary bill to reform the Civil and Criminal Codes. 11. The Commission called the parties to another working meeting held on October 18, 2002, in the framework of the 116th session of the IACHR. On this occasion the State provided information on the processing of the draft bill and said that, owing to the particular nature of the petition concerning Mr. Kimel, it would not be feasible to resolve it completely in the friendly settlement procedure initiated in respect of the socalled "Verbitsky case." 12. On November 27, 2002 the Commission received a communication from the petitioners requesting that the petition lodged on behalf of Mr. Kimel be declared admissible, inasmuch as the deadlines provided for at Article 30 of the IACHR’s Rules of Procedure for the State to submit its observations or objections regarding the admissibility of the petition in question had expired. The IACHR transmitted the relevant parts of that brief to the State in a note of February 5, 2003. 13. The Commission called the parties to another working meeting held on February 28, 2003 in the course of the 117th session of the IACHR. The object of the meeting was to review the status of the negotiations in the friendly settlement procedure on

Select target paragraph3