4 9. On April 16, 2010, in consultation with the plenary of the Court, the President of the Tribunal requested that the State submit information related to the judicial recusals alleged in the present case (infra paras. 175 to 191). 10. On May 24, 2010, the Inter-American Commission, the representatives, and the State presented their final written arguments. The representatives and the State also submitted documentary evidence along with their briefs. Additionally, the State submitted the information requested by the Tribunal on the judicial recusals (supra para. 9) and one of the documents requested by the Court during the public hearing as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case (supra para. 8). 11. On June 18, 2010, the State submitted another document that had been requested by the Tribunal during the hearing as evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the case (supra para. 8). 12. On July 7, 2010, the Tribunal requested that the representatives and the State submit copies of some documents as evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the case. 13. On July 16 and August 11, 2010, the representatives and the State, respectively, submitted the documents requested by the Court as evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the case (supra para. 12). 14. On August 19, 2010, the State submitted to the Tribunal, as evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the case, a copy of a decision issued on August 16, 2010, by the Second Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (hereinafter, “Supreme Court”). 15. On August 20, 2010, the State submitted to the Tribunal additional information related to the creation of a postal stamp as a “measure of reparation” undertaken on its own accord. 16. On August 23, 2010, the Court requested that the Commission and the representatives provide certain information concerning the decision issued on August 16, 2010, by the Second Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (supra para. 14). Likewise, the Tribunal requested that the State and the representatives submit a copy of the postal stamp referred to by the State (supra para. 15). 17. On August 26, 2010, the State submitted to the Court a “report on the advances in fulfilling the commitments assumed by the State […] in order to comply with its obligation to recover the historical memory of Messrs. José Luís Ibsen Peña and Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas,” as well as information on the decision of August 16, 2010, issued by the Second Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. Likewise, the State submitted a copy of the postal stamp requested by the Tribunal (supra para. 16). On that same date, the representatives submitted the information requested by the Tribunal (supra para. 16), with the exception of the postal stamp, and informed the Court of two alleged “criminal acts” that occurred “after the ceremony in which the stamp was delivered.” They also submitted various documents concerning the events alleged.4 Additionally, although 4 The Tribunal does not find any relation between the events reported by the representatives and the factual basis of the application presented by the Commission in this case (infra para. 228). Therefore, the Court shall not rule on those events.