11 52. On September 8, 2000, the Agent of the State sent the President a note in which he expressed "his complete trust in the proceedings conducted by the Court," as well as his "full belief in the impartiality, independence and honourableness of both, the Illustrious President, and all the other judges." 53. On November 22, 2000, the State presented part of the documentation requested by the Court on August 10, 2000, as evidence to broaden the knowledge on the matter. 54. On November 30, 2000, pursuant to instructions from the full Court and as per Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure, the Secretariat requested the Commission to submit, no later than December 13, 2000, the documentary evidence that accredited the request for the payment of costs and expenses contained in its application, as well as the corresponding arguments. On December 12, 2000, the Commission requested an extension of one month for the submission of said information. On the 13th of the same month and year, the Secretariat informed the Commission that the President had granted it until January 8, 2001, as a final extension. 55. On December 22, 2000, the State submitted a brief whereby the Minister of the Interior, Ms. Ivonne Young, informed that there was no record, in the files of the Cabinet Council, of the proceedings conducted against the workers dismissed pursuant to Law 25, nor minutes of the deliberations of the Cabinet Council for December 1990, or the deliberations developed about Resolution N° 10 of January 23, 1991. 56. On January 8, 2001, the Commission submitted the documentary evidence that, in its opinion, accredited the request for the payment of costs and expenses contained in its application, as well as the corresponding arguments. The next day, the Secretariat acknowledged receipt thereof and, pursuant to Instructions from the President, granted the State until January 24, 2001, for the submission of its observations. On January 12, 2001, the Commission sent, via courier, the appendices missing in the January 8, 2000, brief, which were forwarded on that same day to the State. On January 24, 2001, the State submitted its observations on the Commission's brief. V THE EVIDENCE A) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 57. Together with the application brief (supra paragraphs 1, 2 and 3), the 1 Commission submitted a copy of the 50 documents contained in the 26 appendices. 1 cfr. appendix I, note N° 2328-DE of November 12, 1996, of the Executive Director of the National Water and Sewerage Institute addressed to the former IDAAN employees dismissed pursuant to Law 25; appendix II, memorandum N° 554-AL of November 21, 1996, of the Director of the Legal Affairs Department, addressed to the Executive Director of Administrative Services of the same company; appendix III, a certification of August 12, 1991 of the Ninth Prosecutorial Agency, First Judicial Circuit of Panama, with respect to Evangelista Granja; two certifications of August 13, 1991, of the Ninth Prosecutorial Agency, First Judicial Circuit of Panama, with respect to Antonio González and Zilka Aimett Loy-Matos; a certification of August 20, 1991, of the Ninth Prosecutorial Agency, First Judicial Circuit of Panama, with respect to Ernesto Romero; two certification requests of August 12 and 13, 1991, addressed to the Ninth Prosecutorial Agency, First Judicial Circuit of Panama, submitted by Zilka Aimett Loy-Matos, and Antonio González; appendix IV, notes of December 10, 11 and 13, 1990, of the Director General of the Water Resources and Electric Power Institute addressed to Messrs. Gustavo Ortiz, Cristóbal