4 14. The Inter-American Commission named Patrick Robinson as its Delegate, who was later replaced by Carlos Ayala-Corao and Alvaro Tirado-Mejía; Domingo E. Acevedo as its Attorney, and the following persons as Assistants: Juan Méndez, José Miguel Vivanco, Ronald Gamarra, Kathia Salazar, Viviana Krsticevic, Verónica Gómez and Ariel E. Dulitzky, who represented the plaintiff as petitioners before the Commission. Mr. Méndez later withdrew by note of September 16, 1996. 15. On March 23, 1995, the State informed the Court that it had appointed Mario Cavagnaro-Basile as Agent, and on the following day it reported that it had appointed Julio Mazuelos-Coello as Alternate Agent. 16. On March 24, 1995, the State filed written preliminary objections of failure to exhaust domestic remedies and inadmissibility of the petition. In its brief it further requested "the suspension of the proceedings on the merits until such time as the objections presented are disposed of." By Order of May 17, 1995, the Court decided to declare the request inadmissible and to continue processing the Case. 17. On May 8, 1995, the Government submitted its answer to the application, in which it "refute[d] and contest[ed] the entire [application] and ask[ed] the Court ..., on the merit of [its] arguments" to declare it to be totally unfounded. It further stated that for the State to incur responsibility for the violation of a specific right there must have been an act or omission on the part of the authorities, which resulted in an injury attributable to it; otherwise, it may be an infringement or crime for which only the individual who committed it can be held responsible; accordingly, only that person can be responsible for the effects of the act and for reparation of the damage caused. In that brief the State repeated at length its arguments of failure to exhaust the domestic remedies (infra, para. 21). 18. In response to the request of the Court of May 20, July 27 and October 24, 1995, the State submitted, through communications of July 26, September 22 and November 28 of that year, the documentation missing from the file on the domestic proceedings in the case. 19. On May 31, 1995, the Commission submitted the original file on the proceeding before it. 20. On September 23, 1995, the President granted the Commission until November 23 of that year to submit its brief of reply, and to the State a period of two calendar months from the date of its notification to submit its rejoinder. The parties, however, did not submit those briefs. 21. By Judgment of January 31, 1996, the Court unanimously dismissed the preliminary objections raised by the State with regard to the failure to exhaust the domestic remedies. 22. On March 21, 1996, the State sought the nullification of the Judgment on preliminary objections delivered by the Court on January 31 of that year. On April 30 the Commission submitted its observations on that request. By Order of September 10, 1996, the Court rejected “the motion for review as being out of order.” 23. On March 4, 1996, the Commission presented a list of the following witnesses who should be summoned to appear at the public hearing on the merits of the case: María Esther Aguirre-Vera, Erika Katherine Vera-de la Cruz, María Elena Castro-Osorio, Joe Roberto Ruiz-Huapaya (all witnesses to the events), Cronwell Pierre Castillo-Castillo (father of the alleged victim), Elba Minaya-Calle (the Examining Magistrate who heard the petition