3. The State, for its part, alleges that the petitioners’ claims are inadmissible because of the failure to exhaust the remedies under domestic law, required under Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention, and that the allegations do not constitute violations of the American Convention. The State further contends that the courts have responded to the allegations promptly and lawfully and that there has been no action or omission that could compromise the State’s international responsibility. 4. After examining the parties’ positions and compliance with the requirements set forth in articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, the Commission has decided to declare the complaint as regards to the petitioners’ allegations of the violations of articles 4, 5, 8, 19, 24 and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, and Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará to be admissible. Accordingly, the Commission decided to notify the parties of the present report and order its publication. II. PROCESSING BEFORE THE COMMISSION 5. The IACHR registered the petition as number P-1055-06 and on February 8, 2007 proceeded to transmit a copy of the pertinent parts of the petition to the State. It gave the State two months in which to present its response, pursuant to Article 30 (subparagraphs 2 and 3) of the Rules of Procedure. 6. On November 16, 2007, the State presented its observations, which were forwarded to the petitioners on August 22, 2008. The latter were invited to present their observations within twenty days. On November 27, 2007, the State presented its observations, which were forwarded to the petitioners on December 17, 2007. The petitioners were given one month in which to reply. On October 10, 2007, the Allard K. Lowenstein International Human Rights Law Clinic of Yale University Law School filed an amicus curiae brief supporting the petitioners’ allegations. That brief was transmitted to both parties on November 16, 2007. 2