18. On October 17, 2005, during its 123rd regular period of sessions, the Commission held a hearing on the petition in which both the State and the petitioners participated. 19. On November 16, 2005, additional information was received from the Office of the National Public Defender of Argentina. It transmitted a presentation made before the Minister of Justice and Human Rights of the Nation requesting the commutation of the sentence of young Lucas Matías Mendoza due to the severe ophthalmological problems he was experiencing. That information was transmitted to the State on February 15, 2006 with a request for its observations within one month. Likewise, on February 21, 2006, the relevant parts of the additional information provided by the petitioners during the hearing held in the 123rd regular period of sessions of the IACHR were transmitted to the State. Through note OEA 68 of March 7, 2006, the State requested an extension of the deadline to submit its observations. 20. In note OEA 146 of May 2, 2006, the State reported that among other things, on December 15, 2005 the Secretariat of Human Rights had submitted a note to the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights of the Nation, with a “recommendation for the commutation of sentence” in favor of Lucas Matías Mendoza. 21. In a letter dated August 30, 2006, the Commission transmitted to the State information that had been submitted by the petitioners on August 21 and 22, 2006. It also asked the Argentine State for an update on the friendly settlement discussions and on the situation of Lucas Matías Mendoza. 22. In a message dated December 1, 2006, the Commission summoned the parties to a working meeting, which was held on the 6th of that month, during a working visit by the IACHR to Argentina. 23. In a letter dated April 18, 2007, petitioner Stella Maris Martínez informed the Commission that she had attended a meeting that day with representatives of the State at which the petitioners determined that the friendly settlement negotiations were closed due to a lack of concrete proposals. This message was transmitted to the State on June 4, 2007, granting it a one-month deadline to submit the corresponding observations or updated information regarding the case. 24. On June 19, 2007, the petitioner submitted additional information to the Commission regarding the case. She indicated that she considered the friendly settlement process to be over, “without prejudice to resuming that negotiating process should any concrete proposal be presented that would reverse the effects of the violations of the Convention.” This information was transmitted to the State on October 2, 2007, with a request to present its observations within one month. 25. On October 29, 2007, note OEA 232 sent by the State on August 23, 2007 was transmitted to the petitioners. It reiterated the State’s willingness to continue to explore the possibility of arriving at a friendly settlement. 26. On October 31, 2007 additional information was received from the petitioners, which was transmitted to the State in a message dated November 5, 2007.