4. The State argues that to clarify the assassination of Mr. Carvajal Carvajal, a judicial proceeding was held that culminated in the acquittal of the persons allegedly responsible, which became firm on April 6, 2001. Accordingly, the State requests that the Commission declare the petition inadmissible, for having been filed alter the time for doing so had lapsed, given that more than six months elapsed from the last judicial proceeding to the submission of the petition, six months being the period established in Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention. 5. Pursuant to the provisions of Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention as well as Articles 30 and 37 of its Rules of Procedure, and after analyzing the petition without prejudging on the merits, the Commission decided to declare the petition admissible in relation to the alleged violations of Articles 4, 8, 13, and 25, in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the same instrument. The Commission also decides to report this decision to the parties, publish it, and include it in its Annual Report to the General Assembly of the OAS. II. PROCESSING BEFORE THE COMMISSION 6. The complaint was submitted to the Executive Secretariat of the IACHR on June 21, 2002. In keeping with Article 26(2) of its Rules of Procedure, on July 22, 2002, the Commission asked the petitioner to add to its petition, specifying the facts which in its opinion constituted the violations alleged. By communications received on August 22, 2002, and October 17, 2002, the petitioner responded to the Commission’s request providing additional information regarding the facts alleged. 7. On December 3, 2002, the Commission informed the petitioner that the processing had begun. The petition was assigned the number 559-2002, and the pertinent parts of the complaint and supplemental submission were forwarded to the State, which was given two months to submit any observations, in keeping with Article 30 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. 8. On February 6, 2003 the State sent its observations through a communication whose pertinent parts were forwarded to the petitioner on February 13, 2003; the petitioner was asked to submit any comments it might have on the State’s observations within 30 days. On March 11, 2003, the petitioner requested an extension of the term for presenting its observations; accordingly, the Commission, by note of March 20, 2003, gave the petitioner an additional 30 days, and informed the petitioners of that decision by a letter of the same date. 2