16. On September 11, 2000, the petitioners submitted various documents in support of their arguments. 17. On October 30, 2000, the State requested an extension of 60 days to submit its answer to the petitioners' September 5 submission. The Commission replied on November 3, granting an extension of 30 days. The Commission informed the petitioners of this extension on the same day. 18. On December 27, 2000, the petitioners requested a hearing during the 110th period of sessions, but the Commission replied on February 2, 2001, that this would not be possible due to the large number of audiences scheduled during that session. 19. On January 29, 2001, the State submitted its observations on the petitioners' September 5 submission. On February 5, the Commission acknowledged receipt and transmitted the pertinent sections to the petitioners, granting them 30 days to submit observations. 20. On August 2, 2001, the petitioners submitted a response to the State's January 29 submission. On August 14, the Commission acknowledged receipt and transmitted the pertinent sections to the State, granting it one month to submit its observations. 21. On September 18, 2001, the Commission received a request for an extension from the State. The Commission replied on September 24 that the State should take whatever measures necessary to reply to the August 14 request as soon as possible. 22. On November 14, 2001, the petitioners inquired about the status of the case. 23. On January 16, 2002, the State submitted its reply to the observations of the petitioners from August 2, 2001. On January 28, 2002, the Commission acknowledged receipt and transmitted the pertinent sections to the petitioners. 24. By a communication received on August 6, 2002, the petitioners declined to reply to the State's most recent reply because they had previously responded to all of the State's arguments. On August 8, 2002, the petitioners contacted the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, noting that the original petition had been submitted on December 17, 1998, and that Commission had not declared the admissibility of the case. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. Position of the petitioners 25. Marcel Claude Reyes and Sebastián Cox Urrejola are representatives of a nongovernmental organization called Fundación Terram, and Arturo Longton Guerrero is a legislative representative (Diputado de la República). 26. On May 6, 1998, Fundación Terram requested information from the Chilean Committee on Foreign Investment, which had approved a deforestation project known as "Río Cóndor," to be carried out by the company "Trillium Ltda"."Fundación Terram wished to evaluate the commercial factors and also the environmental impact of this activity. This would allow it to pursue its mission of promoting the capacity of civil