• June 21, 2002:
The case was submitted to the IACHR.
• July 22, 2002:
The IACHR asked the IAPA to specify the actions taken to exhaust all the options of the internal jurisdiction (paragraph h of Article 28) regarding the case.
• August 20, 2002:
The IAPA submitted its observations.
• October 17, 2002:
The IAPA sent the IACHR an amplification of the August 20, 2002, observations.
• December 20, 2002:
The IACHR reported that it had sent the IAPA observations to the Colombian state.
• February 11, 2003:
The Colombian state responded that the time for presenting the formal complaint in the Carvajal case to the IACHR had expired (inadmissibility).
• April 16, 2003:
The IAPA responded to the Colombian state with new elements on the Carvajal case.
• May 6, 2003:
The IACHR reported that it had sent the IAPA observations to the Colombian state.
• August 15, 2003:
The Colombian state insisted that the case had lapsed in time. It added that the Colombian Attorney General’s Office confirmed that it had found no evidence of the participation of public officials in the journalist’s death. It alleged that the internal criminal process had been exhausted and considered to have been sufficient and effective for the protection of the rights at issue and that participation of the complainants in the criminal process had not been impeded.
• September 22, 2003:
The IAPA replied that the internal judicial recourses utilized were not effective or efficient and had not led to identification of the culprits. It added that although legal recourses existed in Colombia they were inadequate in that there was a pattern of impunity and threats.
• September 29, 2003:
The IACHR advised that the IAPA observations had been sent to the Colombian state.
• December 9, 2003:
The IACHR sent the Colombian state’s observations of November 6, 2003. They reiterated that the complaint be declared inadmissible on the grounds of its not complying with the requirements of the American Convention on Human Rights under Article 46 (failure to comply with the six months’ time limit). They argued that the civil part had not gone ahead due to the fact that the interested parties had not pursued the corresponding civil action.
• January 2, 2004:
The IAPA ratified its position on this case as regards what had been explained concerning the exhaustion of internal recourses.
• November 11, 2004:
The IACHR reported that the case had been accepted for review and was given the case number 12,462. In this notification the IACHR proposed the case be resolved through an amicable agreement.
• The IAPA on various occasions requested further time in order to conduct new on-site investigations and to study the IACHR suggestion concerning an amicable agreement.
• August 25, 2005:
The IAPA sent its additional observations on the basis of the case. It also accepted the suggestion of an amicable solution “so as to bring about an early and effective resolution in the quest for justice.” The IACHR was asked to hold a hearing with representatives of the Colombian state and the IAPA.
• September 20, 2005:
The IACHR called the parties (the IAPA and the Colombian state) to a working session on October 19, 2005, in which an amicable agreement would be considered.
• October 19, 2005:
Meeting at the IACHR in Washington, D.C. The representatives of the Colombian state showed willingness to reach an amicable agreement. A joint working group was named to come up with an agreement framework, agenda and calendar of priorities and activities.
• December 14, 2005:
The first meeting of the working group, made up of representatives of the Colombian government and the IAPA. It was held in Bogotá, Colombia.
• April 5, 2006:
The second meeting of the working group, in Bogotá, Colombia.