-6stated that “with regard to the information provided by the representatives of the beneficiaries concerning the difficulties they face to attend the hearing, […] it considers […] it would be advisable to consider postponing it” and indicated, inter alia, that it deemed it very important that the beneficiaries be able to present to the Court their position regarding the measures the State has advised that it has adopted. 10. The brief of June 30, 2006, in which Argentina forwarded its observations on the brief of June 26, 2006, presented by the representatives of the beneficiaries of the measures (supra Having seen paragraph 5) and indicated, inter alia, that: a) It was evaluating the possibility of assuming the cost of the air transportation of María Leontina Millacura Llaipén and her lawyers. This possibility should be interpreted in the context of the traditional policy of cooperation between the Argentine State and the Inter-American Court and Commission; and b) The representatives’ request that the provisional measures ordered should be expanded to require the State to guarantee the representatives’ access to the jurisdiction had insufficient legal grounds, because it was not based on either the Convention or the Rules of Procedure in force and, moreover, access to the jurisdiction had already been made effective by the issue of the urgent measures requested by the Commission, which, in addition to being a legitimate party, will be present at the hearing, thus guaranteeing plurality. 11. The note of the Secretariat of June 30, 2006, in which, on the instructions of the President, it informed the State that, owing to the imminence of the public hearing that had been convened, it was urgent that it provide information, as soon as possible, about the decision it had adopted regarding the possibility of assuming the cost of the air transportation of María Leontina Millacura Llaipén and her lawyers (supra Having seen paragraph 10(a)), so that the Court could take the appropriate decisions. 12. The brief of July 1, 2006, in which the representatives stated that “the three parties to the case would attend the prior meeting and the hearing, if they obtained sufficient funds,” and requested information about whether the State had submitted the report it had been required to present in the fourth operative paragraph of the Order of President of June 21, 2006 (supra Having seen paragraph 4). 13. The note of the Secretariat of July 3, 2006, in which, on the instructions of the President of the Court, it requested the State to submit, as soon as possible, the report required in the fourth operative paragraph of the Order of the President of June 21, 2006 (supra Having seen paragraph 4), which was supposed to have been presented by June 30, 2006. 14. The brief of July 3, 2006, in which the State indicated, inter alia, that: a) “The Human Rights Secretariat […] had confirmed by telephone […] that it would assume the cost of the air transportation of the lawyers and the government of Chubut Province had confirmed that it would assume the transportation costs of María Leontina Millacura Llaipén”; and b) Regarding the request made in the Secretariat’s note of June 30, 2006 (supra Having seen paragraph 7), it indicated that this documentation had not been