-6that do not form part of the common intervener, and Alejandro Hinostroza, Luis Arias-Tirado and Robin Elguera-Gancho, alleged victims, filed three statements by means of which they expressed their concern about the designation of a common intervener for the representatives of the alleged victims (supra para. 23.) 25. On November 10 and 21, 2003, the Secretariat, following instructions of the President, explained to Gonza-Tito, Saavedra-Rivera, Ruiz-Mimbela, RojasPoccorpachi, Paredes-Márquez, Canales-Pereyra, Hinostroza, Arias-Tirado and Elguera-Gancho (supra para. 24) the reasons for the designation of a common intervener and recommended them to try to coordinate with the said common intervener and with the other groups of representatives on the causes of action in the case so that the intervener could forward them with the Court. 26. On November 24, 2004, the State appointed Mario Pasco-Cosmópolis as agent. 27. On December 2, 2003 and March 18, 2004, Joseph Campos-Torres, Manuel Francisco Saavedra-Rivera and Cristina Rojas-Poccorpachi, in their capacity as representatives of the alleged victims that do not form part of the common intervener, filed two briefs requesting the Court to reconsider its decision to designate the group identified as group “a” in the application (supra para. 23) as common intervener. Appendixes were attached to said statements on December 2, 2003. 28. On December 5, 2003, the state appointed Javier de Belaunde-López de Romaña as ad hoc judge. 29. On January 15, 2004, after an extension that had been granted by the President, the common intervener submitted his brief of requests, arguments and evidence (hereinafter “the brief of requests and arguments”) wherein, in addition to the violations alleged by the Inter-American Commission, the said common intervener alleged the violation of Articles 8(1), 25(1) and 26 of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1(1) thereof. Likewise, the common intervener also filed documentary evidence and offered to submit further testimony of witnesses and expert witnesses as evidence. 30. On March 26, 2004, after two time extensions that had been granted by the President (being one of them upon his own motion), the State filed a brief with its preliminary comments, its answer to the application and its comments on the brief of requests and arguments, together with documentary evidence, and also offered the testimony of witnesses and expert witnesses as further evidence. On March 30, 2004 he filed the appendixes to such brief. 31. On April 27, 2004, the Secretariat sent a note to Cristina Rojas-Poccorpachi and Joseph Campos-Torres, Manuel Francisco Saavedra and Héctor ParedesMárquez, following the instructions of the Court en banc, with reference to the petitions filed on December 2, 2003 and March 18, 2004 (supra, para. 27,) and stated, inter alia, that since the alleged victims had not reached an agreement as to the designation of a common intervener, in compliance with the provisions set forth in Article 23(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, the Court had to make the appropriate ruling and appoint a common intervener, for which it considered the representatives who held powers of attorney from the greatest No. of alleged victims that had granted them.