II. PROCESSING BEFORE THE COMMISSION 5. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the petition on November 10, 1994. By note of June 15, 1995, the Commission initiated the processing of the matter by transmitting the pertinent parts of the denunciation to the State, with a response requested within 90 days. By a note of September 19, 1995, the State requested an extension of time in which to respond. The Commission granted an additional 45 days by note of September 21, 1995. By note of November 6, 1995, the State requested a further extension. By note of November 7, 1995, the Commission granted the State a final 45 days. 6. In a communication dated November 7, 1995, and received the following day, the petitioners informed the Commission that they had met with a number of State officials, and requested a 30 day suspension of the proceedings in order to pursue a possible friendly settlement under the terms of Article 48(f) of the American Convention. On November 10, 1995, the Commission acknowledged receipt of that communication, and transmitted the pertinent parts to the State. The Commission indicated to both parties that it was pleased by this initiative toward a possible friendly settlement and wished to be informed of the advances and results achieved. 7. The State filed its response to the petition via a note dated December 14, 1995, expressly indicating its disposition to seek a friendly settlement of the matter at issue. This was transmitted to the petitioners on December 18, 1995, with the presentation of observations or additional information requested within 30 days. 8. On October 28, 1996, the petitioners presented a communication seeking that the State define its position on a proposal of friendly settlement. On November 4, 1996, the Commission requested that the State provide information on the development of the friendly settlement process, and attached a copy of the foregoing communication presented by the petitioners. 9. On November 12, 1996, the State reported on a meeting held on November 11, 1996 with the petitioners, in which Mr. Grande’s attorney reportedly agreed to proffer a proposal for a friendly settlement agreement within 30 days. On January 21, 1997, the State reported that this proposal had been presented and was under study. By notes of March 7 and 27, June 5, and August 1, 1997, the petitioners requested that the State promptly define its position on a possible settlement. On August 7, 1997, the Commission addressed the State to request information on the status of the friendly settlement process and to transmit a copy of the petitioners’ August 1, 1997 communication. 10. By notes dated November 6, 1997, and March 4 and 12, and June 1 and 23, 1998, the petitioners informed the Commission that, because of divergent views within the Government itself, the friendly settlement process was not progressing. On July 6, 1998, the Commission indicated that this matter was among those to be discussed during meetings with the State during the month of August 1998. The petition was discussed with both parties during a visit to Argentina in August of 1998 by the Commission’s Rapporteur and Executive Secretary. 11.On August 20, 1998, the petitioners expressed their desire to continue with the friendly settlement process, notwithstanding the lengthy delays and other obstacles encountered. On August 21, 1998, the State reported that it was engaged in efforts to implement the internal measures necessary to concretize a friendly settlement, and that this process had led to some delay due to the lack of internal norms in this area. This communication was transmitted to the petitioner by note of August 25, 1998, with any observations requested within 30 days. The petitioners responded with a brief communication of September 9, 1998. The petitioners’ communications of August 20 and September 9 were transmitted to the state on September 25, 1998, with the receipt of all information relative to the matter requested within 60 days. 2