8 was untimely filed inasmuch as the term established to such end had already expired". According to the State, the application was notified on May 11, 2007 therefore the period of time established in Article 36(1) of the Rules of Procedure expired on July 11 of that same year. Nevertheless, the State argued that the representatives filed their brief containing pleadings and motions “one day after the expiration of such term". 25. The Court notes that this issue has been already considered by the President in Order of March 18, 2008 issued in consultation with all the Judges of the Tribunal, given fact that the State asserted, using that same argument, that the evidence furnished by representatives "may not be validly incorporated into the proceeding". In this manner, President considered the following issues: the the the the 7. That […] the President observes that the State has put forward an argument as a preliminary objection and as ground for its objection as to the admission by the Court of the testimonial evidence and expert opinions furnished by the representatives. In general, by means of a procedural act of such nature (preliminary objection), the questioning would be based on the admissibility of a case or the Jurisdiction of the Court ratione personae, materiae, temporis or loci to hear a case or some evidence thereof. Therefore, the issue regarding the formal admissibility of a brief submitted by one of the parties does not constitute per se an issue of preliminary nature that need to be filed by means of an objection. Nevertheless, this President deems appropriate to make a decision in such regard, inasmuch as the preliminary issue needs to be solved in order to continue with the processing of the case. […] 9. That, according to the usual practice of the Tribunal, the terms are counted, for the interested party, as from the moment in which a communication is effectively and completely received at the place designated by the party in order to receive notices and official communications, via facsimile, normal mail or courier. […] 10. That, it springs from the records of the case file that the application's brief was notified via facsimile to the representatives of some of the alleged victims on May 11, 2007 and that on that same day, it was forwarded via courier together with all the exhibits, which were received by the representatives on May 14, 2007. In fact, this has been duly informed to the parties by means of a Secretariat's note of August 30, 2007, after the State would have requested such information [...] That is, the term to file the brief containing pleadings and motions commenced to run on May 14, 2007. Given the fact that the representatives' brief was received by the Court on July 12, 2007, this Presidency verifies that the brief was filed within the corresponding procedural term and, therefore, the testimonial evidence and expert opinions were furnished in time fashion. […]19 26. The State, nevertheless, indicated in its oral arguments put forward during the public hearing, that, according to the Rules of Procedure, this decision is the responsibility of the Full Court to make and not of its President or, in any case, it must be decided in the corresponding judgment on the merits; therefore, by admitting the representatives’ brief, the Order of the President is void since it violated the Rules of Procedure and deprived the full Court of the consideration of a case of its exclusive jurisdiction. Based on those reasons, the State requested the Court that this objection be admitted and the corresponding autonomous brief be considered acknowledged. 27. The Court repeats, under the same terms of such President's Order of March 18, 2008, that the issue about the formal admissibility of a brief submitted by one of the parties does not constitute per se an issue of preliminary nature that need to be put forward by means of an objection; moreover, the Court deems that this procedural issue has already been decided by the President in such Order. Based on the foregoing, the Court considers the first preliminary objection raised by the State to be inadmissible. B) SECOND PRELIMINARY OBJECTION 19 Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 18, 2008.