2 23, 1991, the Commission again forw arded the communications to the petitioners. In addition, on October 23, 1991 the State submitted its observations, w hich w ere forw arded to the petitioners for their observations. On November 27, 1991, the petitioners asked for an extension, w hich w as granted by the Commission. On August 4, 1995, the petitioners submitted their observations, w hich w ere forw arded to the State for its observations. On September 10, 1997, the State sent observations, w hich w ere forw arded to the petitioners for their observations. On August 28, 1998, the Commission again asked the petitioners for information. 6. On November 18, 2009, the IACHR asked the State for updated information on the matter in question. In response, the State submitted information on December 18, 2009, w hich w as forw arded to the petitioners for their observations. On March 29, 2010 the petitioners asked for an extension, w hich w as granted by the IACHR. On July 6, 2010, the petitioners submitted their observations, w hich w ere forw arded to the State for its observations. On August 17, 2010, the State submitted a brief w ith final observations, w hich w ere forw arded to the petitioners for their information. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. Position of the Petitioners 7. The petitioners state that Víctor Manuel Isaza Uribe w orked at the Cementos Naré company and w as a member of the Union of Construction Materials Workers (SUTIMAC) in Puerto Naré, Department of Antioquia. They state that there w as a military base in that area attached to the Bárbula Battalion of the National Army, a Coast Guard unit of the National Navy, and a police station. They also state that there w as a strong military presence in the area. 8. The petitioners allege that the disappearance of Víctor Manuel Isaza Uribe w as not an isolated occurrence given that since 1986 various members of SUTIMAC w ere murdered or disappeared by the paramilitary group, MAS (Muerte a Secuestradores). In that context, they state that on October 27, 1987, Humberto García, chief of industrial relations of the Cementos Naré company w as murdered and on the same night Víctor Manuel Isaza Uribe w as arrested as the alleged perpetrator of the murder and taken to the La Sierra prison in the municipality of Puerto Naré. They allege that on October 28, 1987 Víctor Manuel Isaza Uribe w as transferred to the Criminal Investigation Court 64 in Puerto Naré w here his statement w as taken. He w as then returned to prison to aw ait the start of his trial. They allege that at about 1:00 a.m. on November 19, 1987 a group of approximately ten w ell-armed men, some of them in military uniforms and others in civilian clothes, entered the La Sierra prison and abducted the alleged victim w ith three other prisoners, w ith no reaction on the part of the authorities. To date there is no information regarding his w hereabouts. 9. They allege that based on these events a criminal investigation w as initiated based on a complaint filed w ith the Criminal Investigation Court 64 in Puerto Naré. They state that on January 29, 1988 the preliminary investigation w as referred to the Municipal Investigation Office of Puerto Naré and on January 29, 1991 the proceedings w ere referred to Itinerant Criminal Investigation Judge 104 of Medellín. Subsequently, the Single Prosecutor’ s Unit of Puerto Naré sent the preliminary investigation to Sectional Prosecutor’ s Office 125 of Puerto Berrío, Antioquia, w hich took over the investigation on December 3, 1993.