6. On June 25, 2003 the petitioners presented additional information as requested. On June 30, 2004 the Commission acknowledged having received from the petitioners, for presentation to the government of Chile, the following documentation in English: "Petition to the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights. Leopoldo Garcia, 15 May 2002" and "Additional Information to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Ref. 0350/2002)". The Commission requested the petitioners to submit that documentation in Spanish, the language that must be used in presentations to the Government of Chile. 7. On November 3, 2004 the Commission acknowledged receipt from the petitioners of the Spanish translation of the documents in question. That information was transmitted to the State on November 23, 2004, giving it three months to present its observations. 8. On March 15, 2005 the Commission acknowledged receipt of Note 059 dated February 16, 2005 from the Ministry of Foreign Relations of Chile whereby the State submitted its observations opposing the admission of the petition. On March 16, the Commission transmitted the pertinent portions of the State's response to the petitioners for their observations. The response of the State was presented late: the State did not request an extension of the time limit for responding, nor did it attempt to justify its delay in doing so. 2 9. On April 19, 2005 the petitioners presented their observations to the response of the State. In that communication, the petitioners clarified the scope of their complaint and reiterated their position with respect to the Commission's jurisdiction to declare admissibility and to examine the merits of the case. On May 25, 2005 the information submitted by the petitioners was presented to the State without requesting its observations, given that the petitioners' observations merely reiterated the arguments contained in the petition. There has been no further correspondence with the parties since that date. III. A. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES Position of the petitioner 10. The original complaint alleged that the State of Chile was responsible for violations of Articles 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, taken in concordance with Articles 1(1) and 2 of that statute, and for violation of Articles 1 and 9 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. On April 19, 2005, the petitioners presented a communication clarifying the scope of the petition, as follows: The facts alleged against the democratic government relate, on one hand, to failure to fulfill the obligations assumed by the State of Chile to adapt its domestic legislation to the precepts of the American Convention, thereby violating Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention; and on the other hand, the application of this legislation, which denies the petitioner's right to justice, thereby violating Articles 8 and 25 in relation with Article 1(1). By virtue of the petitioners' clarification, the Commission did not pursue its examination of the alleged violations of Articles 5 and 7 of the American Convention, or the alleged violations of Articles 1 and 9 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. 2 Article 30(3) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure provides: “The State shall submit its response within two months counted from the date the request is transmitted. The Executive Secretariat shall evaluate requests for extensions of this period that are duly founded. However, it shall not grant extensions that exceed three months from the date of the first request for information sent to the State.” The Commission is not supposed to accept a late response from the State but in this case, because of the importance of the issue, it will take it into account. 2