25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with the obligations established in Article 1.1 of the same instrument and in light of Article I of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. 6. On July 26, 2011, the Commission notified the parties of its admissibility report and, pursuant to Article 37.1 of the Rules of Procedures then in force, gave the petitioners three months in which to submit their additional observations on the merits. Furthermore, pursuant to Article 48.1.f) of the American Convention, the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the Parties with a view to reaching a friendly settlement of the matter. 7. On October 26, 2011, the petitioners expressed interest in initiating a friendly settlement procedure and put forward a proposal. Given that the State did not respond to that proposal, the Commission, at the request of the petitioners ruled out that possibility in a communication dated October 5, 2012. 8. On November 8, 2012, the petitioners submitted their observations on the merits, which were forwarded to the State on December 21, 2012. In a communication dated April 22, 2013, the State presented its arguments on the merits. The petitioners sent in their observations regarding those arguments on December 13, 2013. The State submitted further observations in a note received on August 14, 2014. They, too, were forward to the petitioners. III. A. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES The petitioners 9. The petitioners stated that Víctor Manuel Isaza Uribe worked at the Cementos Naré company and was a member of the Union of Construction Materials Workers (SUTIMAC) in Puerto Nare, Department of Antioquia. They alleged the forced disappearance of Mr. Víctor Manuel Isaza Uribe on November 19, 1987 at the hands of members of a paramilitary group who had no difficulty entering the prison in Puerto Nare, where he had been held since October 28 of that year. 10. The petitioners pointed out that eye witnesses, such as the workers ending their shift and the street cleaners, saw Víctor Manuel Isaza Uribe and three other detainees being taken away in two cars by individuals dressed in civilian clothes and others in military uniform. They also saw one of the detainees who resisted being beaten unconscious and then placed in the vehicle. 11. They stated that the disappearance of Víctor Manuel Isaza Uribe was not a random act. They explained that, starting in 1986, a series of members of SUTIMAC, were murdered or disappeared by the paramilitary group MAS (Muerte a Secuestradores, which means Death to Kidnappers). They added that it was common to see members of the MAS on patrol by the river with members of the Coast Guard unit of the Colombian Navy or taking part in Army patrols. They said that in 1986 and 1987 numerous members of SUTIMAC and of the Empresa Colombiana de Carburos trade union -- some of whom were also members of Unión Patriótica (UP), -- had been murdered or disappeared by paramilitary groups operating with military units billeted in the region. 12. In that connection, the petitioners reported that Mr. Horacio de Jesús Gil Gómez,, an inmate of the municipal prison at the time, had recognized one of the captors as a member of MAS. According to them, he had told the judicial authorities that "among those dressed in civilian clothes was a man who I believe killed Pablo Emilio Córdoba Madrigal, a UP councilor." The petitioners said that right after that statement by Mr. Gil Gómez, the proceeding was suspended and never resumed, despite the seriousness of that allegation. 13. The petitioners stated that the criminal investigations were never directed to shed light on the circumstances surrounding the forced disappearance of Víctor Manuel Isaza Uribe; nor to identify the perpetrators of the crime or reveal the participation of the Army, Navy, or police units stationed in the municipality of Puerto Nare. They added that in 1995 two people said to be members of the paramilitary group MAS were to be included in the criminal investigation proceedings, but no action was taken against