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

Select target paragraph3