6. On May 25, 1999, the State requested a 60-day extension, to enable it to obtain the
data necessary to comply with the Commission’s request.
7. On June 1, 1999 the petitioners requested information about the status of the case.
The Commission replied on June 11, informing the petitioners that the petition had
been sent to the State, and that they would be notified upon receipt of a reply. On
June 14, the petitioners inquired whether the State had requested an extension.
8. On July 19, 1999, the State requested a 30-day extension, which was granted by
the Commission in a letter sent on July 21.
9. On August 13, 1999, the State submitted its reply, arguing that the petition should
be deemed inadmissible. The Commission acknowledged receipt on August 19. On the
same date, the Commission sent the pertinent portions of the State's reply to the
petitioners, granting them 30 days to submit observations.
10.On September 1, 1999, the Commission informed all parties that it would hold a
hearing in the course of the 104th period of sessions. The hearing took place on
October 4, 1999. During the hearing, Dr. Juan Pablo Olmedo and Dr. Ciro Colombara
appeared on behalf of the petitioners. Dr. Alejandro Salinas appeared on behalf of the
State of Chile. Both parties presented considerations on the merits of the case.
11. On February 4, 2000, the State submitted a copy of its response to the
questionnaire on Habeas Data and Access to Information in the power of the State.
This questionnaire had been issued to all OAS member States by the Office of the
Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, to gather information for its 2001
Annual Report. The Commission acknowledged receipt on February 22. On the same
date, the Commission sent the pertinent portions of the State's submission to the
petitioners, granting them 30 days to reply.
12. On February 22, 2000, petitioners submitted observations on the State submission
that had been received on February 4. On March 6, the Commission acknowledged
receipt and sent the pertinent portions of the petitioners' submission to the State,
granting them 30 days to submit observations.
13. On June 21, 2000, the Commission received the State's reply to the petitioners'
submission of February 22. The Commission acknowledged receipt on July 11. On the
same date, the Commission sent the pertinent portions of the State's submission to
the petitioners, granting them 30 days to submit observations.
14. On August 14, 2000, the petitioners requested a hearing with the Commission in
its 108th period of sessions, but the Commission replied on September 15 that this
would not be possible due to the large number of hearings scheduled during that
session.
15. On September 5, 2000, the Commission received the petitioners' response to the
State's June 20 submission. On September 26, the Commission acknowledged receipt
and transmitted the pertinent sections to the State, granting them 30 days to submit
observations.

Select target paragraph3