2 Law No. 2191 –given its lack of effects due to its incompatibility with the American Convention, since it can prevent or hinder the investigation and punishment of persons responsible for serious human rights violations- so it does not pose an obstacle to the investigation, prosecution and punishment of other similar violations that occurred in Chile, and the rights of the victims to truth, justice and reparations; (4) to immediately proceed to investigate, impartially, effectively and within a reasonable time frame the facts in the terms established in the present report, with the objective of completely clarifying them, identifying those responsible and punish them accordingly. In the State’s compliance with this obligation, it can not allege the fact that the Decree Law No. 2191 is in effect in Chile. The Commission also decided to send this report to the State, giving it two months in which to comply with the Commission’s recommendations. Finally, the IACHR decided to notify the petitioners that a report had been approved under Article 50 of the American Convention. III. PROCESSING SUBSEQUENT TO REPORT No. 58/05 5. On October 12, 2005, the Commission adopted Report No. 58/05, declaring Case 12.519 admissible as regards the alleged violations of the rights protected under Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. By a communication dated December 5, 2005, the Commission forwarded the admissibility report to the parties and gave them two months in which to submit any additional observations on the merits of the case. The Commission also took that opportunity to offer its good offices to the parties with a view to arriving at a friendly settlement, in keeping with Article 48(1)(f) of the American Convention. By a communication received on December 27, 2005, the petitioners requested an extension for their reply, which the Commission granted on January 5, 2006. 6. By a communication received on February 17, 2006, the petitioners expressed their interest in arriving at a friendly settlement with the State. That communication was forwarded to the State on March 7, 2006, and again on October 25 of that year. 7. On September 11, 2007, the petitioners requested a working meeting, which the Commission agreed to. By a communication received October 3, 2007, the petitioners requested that the hearing be postponed because of a delay in obtaining a visa for Mr. García Lucero. Further communications were received from the petitioners on December 6, 2007, February 15, and March 4 and 12, 2008. These communications were duly forwarded to the State. 8. On March 11, 2008, during the Commission’s 131st period of sessions, a working meeting was held at the Commission headquarters, with the petitioners and the State in attendance, as part of the friendly settlement process. On March 24, 2008, the IACHR sent a communication to the parties in which it included the commitment undertaken by the State at that working meeting, which was to provide certain information and take certain measures within 60 days. The State replied via a communication received on April 4, 2008, in which it indicated that it would send the requested information. The petitioners sent another communication on May 16, 2008. The State also sent another communication, which was received on October 14, 2008. 9. On October 27, 2008, during its 133rd period of sessions, the Commission held a hearing at its headquarters. At the close of that hearing, the Commission said that its impression was that the State was not interested in pursuing the friendly settlement process. 10. The petitioners presented observations in communications received on October 28 and December 22, 2008, February 19, May 29, and December 9, 2009, August 18, September 30 and December 2, 2010. The petitioners’ communications were duly forwarded to the State, which presented its observations via communications received on December 8 and 9, 2008, April 28 and October 5, 2009. Those communications were duly forwarded to the petitioners.