4 5. On June 14, 1994, Bolivia replied to the Commission’s request, stating that it acknowledged its “responsibility for the facts denounced.” 6. On September 5, 1994, in a letter to the Commission, the State acknowledged the facts denounced and described the investigations conducted and the steps taken with regard to the disappearance of Mr. Trujillo Oroza, which had occurred on February 2, 1972. 7. On October 13, 1994, pursuant to Article 48.f of the Convention, the InterAmerican Commission placed itself at the disposal of the parties in order to reach a friendly settlement; however, “after a long process of meetings and hearings before the Commission, the parties did not reach an agreement.” 8. On October 24, 1997, Bolivia submitted a communication to the Commission in which it summarized the statement of Edgar Montaño, Deputy Minister of Human Rights, who represented Bolivia in a hearing before the Commission on October 10, 1997, and who once again acknowledged the State’s responsibility for the disappearance of the victim. However, in the same communication, the State indicated that the proceeding before the Commission “ha[d] not strictly adhered to the terms of the American Convention” and that the petitioner had violated Article 46 of this Convention by not exhausting domestic remedies, since no legal action had been initiated or concluded in Bolivia seeking punishment of the guilty parties or compensation for the alleged moral damages. Furthermore, it argued that Bolivia has experienced a continuous democratic process since 1982 and that due legal process existed under its domestic legislation for protection of the rights that had been violated; it also called attention to the fact that “only twenty years after the disappearance of the said person a complaint had been brought before the Commission.” 9. On February 25, 1998, the State offered compensation of US$40,000 (forty thousand United States dollars) to the victim’s mother, in a hearing before the Commission. However, Bolivia stated that there would be certain difficulties in initiating the corresponding investigation by the Office of the Prosecutor and suggested that it should be the victim’s mother who initiated this before the Public Ministry. It indicated that the case was barred by the statute of limitations and that the victim’s mother had never filed a complaint before the corresponding judicial organs, not even after 1982, when the country returned to the democratic system. It added that it would be difficult and expensive to recover the victim’s remains. 10. On August 19, 1998, the Commission informed Bolivia that, pursuant to Article 45.7 of its Regulations, it declared that its role as organ of conciliation for a friendly settlement in the instant case had terminated. 11. On March 2, 1999, during its 102nd Regular Session, the Commission held a public hearing with the parties in this case. During this hearing, the State presented to the Commission a copy of the communication of January 8, 1999, addressed by Mary Severich Siles, District Public Defense Coordinator of Santa Cruz to the District Prosecutor of that city, in which she requested the Office of the Prosecutor to order “the Judicial Police to commence proceedings in relation to the disappearance of José Carlos Trujillo Oroza.” 12. On March 2 and 5, 1999, Bolivia submitted additional information regarding the “steps taken to date, since the complaint was filed on January 9, 1999, together