5 of the parties with a view to reaching a friendly settlement of the matter, as provided in Article 48.1.f of the American Convention. 7. The petitioners requested an extension until May 20, 2005, which was granted, and on April 14 of the same year they accepted the proposal to start a friendly settlement process. On June 15, 2005, they submitted their observations on the merits. The petitioners submitted additional information on April 13 and October 16, 2006; September 25, 2007; and June 5, 2008. All communications mentioned in this paragraph were duly forwarded to the State. 8. On September 19, 2006, the State asked to initiate a dialogue to explore the possibility of reaching a friendly settlement with the petitioners. On November 29, 2007, it requested an extension, which was granted. It presented observations on November 21, 2008, and February 25, 2009. The communications mentioned in this paragraph were duly forwarded to the petitioners. 9. On January 5, 2009, the petitioners gave written notice of their decision to consider the friendly settlement process terminated. On March 13, 2009, they submitted additional information. All communications mentioned in this paragraph were duly forwarded to the State. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. The petitioners 10. The petitioners indicate that, on March 16, 1992, Oscar Alberto Mohamed, a bus driver in the City of Buenos Aires, struck a pedestrian at the intersection of Belgrano and Piedras, who died of her injuries. They add that as a result Mr. Mohamed was charged and tried for negligent homicide (homicidio culposo). 11. The first instance judgment, issued on August 30, 1994, absolved Mr. Mohamed of criminal responsibility. The prosecution and the private claimant appealed the acquittal before the First Chamber of the Chamber of Appeals for Criminal and Correctional Matters. The defense appealed only with respect to the allocation of attorneys’ fees. In its sentence of February 22, 1995, the First Chamber revoked the judgment at first instance, sentenced Mr. Mohamed to a three-year suspended prison sentence, and disqualified him from driving any vehicle for eight years. 12. The defense filed a special appeal with the First Chamber of the Chamber of Appeals based on claims that the conviction violated the right to due process and that the court had erroneously applied transit regulations that had not been in effect at the time of the accident. On July 4, 1995, the First Chamber of the Chamber of Appeals handed down a judgment rejecting the special appeal, stating that although the defense had presented what amounted to a material error, the verdict was based on a principle of objective responsibility, established in the Penal Code, which could not be challenged. The defense then presented a complaint motion to the Supreme Court, alleging the Chamber’s express recognition that it had violated the ex post facto principle. In a decision of September 19, 1995, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal as inadmissible, in application of Article 280 of the federal Civil and Commercial Procedure Code. 13. The defense then filed an appeal for revocation with the Supreme Court based on violation of the ex post facto principle and the right to a fair trial, established in Argentina’s Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the American Convention. That appeal was dismissed via a decision of October 19, 1995, indicating that the challenged