3 of January 25, 1995, the Commission clarified that “the time indicated on the cover page of the fax was that registered by the fax machine of the Commission and not that of the Court” and that, moreover, this time was an hour ahead of the actual time because the Department of Material Resources of the Organization of American States (hereinafter the “OAS”) generally does not adjust those machines during the winter schedule. For that reason “as the hour of Costa Rica was one hour earlier than that of Washington, D.C. [the seat of the Commission], it meant that the Court began to receive the application at 11:52 (Costa Rican time).” Submitted as an attachment to this letter was a memorandum from the Director of the Department of Human Resources of the O.A.S. certifying the change of hour of the fax of the Commission. 5. The President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”), after making a preliminary review of the application and once the Commission had corrected the deficiencies listed in the Secretariat's letter of February 9, 1995, authorized the processing of the case. By note of March 6, 1995, the Government was officially notified of the application and was granted a period of two weeks to appoint an Agent and Alternate Agent; a period of three months to answer the application; and a period of thirty days to present preliminary objections. In another communication of the same date the Government was invited to appoint a Judge ad hoc. 6. By note of March 20, 1995, the Government appointed Acisclo Valledares-Molina and Vicente Arranz-Sanz as Agent and Alternate Agent respectively. On April 19 of the same year it named Edgar Enrique Larraondo-Salguero as Judge ad hoc. On August 29, 1995, the Government named Alfonso Novales-Aguirre as Judge ad hoc in substitution of LarraondoSalguero. The Court, by Order of September 11, 1995, decided “[n]ot to admit the attempted replacement of Judge ad hoc Edgar Enrique Larraondo-Salguero by Attorney Alfonso Novales-Aguirre.” 7. On April 3, 1995, in accordance with Article 31 of the Rules of Procedure, the Government submitted a brief containing its preliminary objections. (see infra para. 23) 8. In that same writing the Government asked the Court to decide expressly, as it may at the stage of preliminary objections, on the suspension of the proceedings on the merits. The Court, by Order of May 17, 1995, declared this request to be inadmissible and continued processing the case in its distinct procedural stages, since the requested suspension was not in response to an “exceptional situation,” and no arguments were presented to justify it. 9. The Secretariat, in accordance with Article 31(3) of the Rules of Procedure, transmitted the preliminary objections to the Commission and granted it a period of thirty days to submit its arguments. The Commission submitted them on May 4, 1995, in a brief in which it refuted the objections “as factually and legally completely groundless.” 10. The President, by Order of May 20, 1995, and in accordance with Article 31(6) of the Rules of Procedure, summoned the parties to a public hearing to be held on September 14, 1995, for the presentation of oral arguments on the preliminary objections. The Commission requested a postponement of the hearing, and the President, by means of an Order of June 30, 1995 granted the request and set September 16, 1995, as the date for the hearing. 11. On June 2, 1995 the Government submitted its reply to the application.