8 B) Failure of the representatives to comply with the time limit established in the Court’s Rules of Procedure for submitting the pleadings and motions brief and its attachments 26. The State alleged that the representatives failed to comply with the time limits established in Articles 26(1) and 36(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court. It affirmed that, with the reform of the Rules of Procedure that entered into force on January 1, 2004, the procedural system became more rigorous with parties that failed to submit their briefs within the time frame specified in Article 36(1) of the Rules of Procedure. It considered that the procedural balance should be preserved and that the treatment imposed on the defendant should also apply to the representatives. It maintained that, on February 6, 2008, the Court notified the application to the representatives; hence, they should have submitted their pleadings and motions brief by April 6, 2008, at the latest; namely, two months after the notification. However, a copy of this brief (not the original), without its attachments, was received by the Court on April 11, 2008. On May 16, 2008, the representatives forwarded the original of the briefs with two of the eleven attachments, and these were sent to the State on May 20, 2008. The same day, the Court received three more attachments, which were forwarded to the State on May 23, 2008. To date, it has not been able to examine the remaining documents. The State affirmed that, owing to the delays, it was granted ex officio an extension until July 11, 2008, to present its answer to the application. However, the extension was only for one month and 15 days, which was considerably less than the two months it should have been granted to examine all the briefs of the representatives, including the attachments, under the provisions of Article 38 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, and this prejudiced the State’s defense. Consequently, it considered that the Court should deem the representatives’ right to submit their pleadings and motions brief precluded, and requested that all the representatives’ briefs and the attachments should be removed from the case file and rejected owing to failure to comply with Articles 26 and 38 of the Rules of Procedure.15 27. The Commission did not refer to this allegation by the State “because it was unaware of the dates on which the documents were received.” It considered that the Court should assess the arguments of the State and the representatives in accordance with its competence and the reasonableness of the said time limits. 28. The representatives stated that they had received the application submitted by the Commission, via facsimile on February 6, 2008. However, the original brief and its attachments were received on February 11, 2008, and they considered that this was the date on which calculation of the non-extendible period of two months for forwarding their pleadings and motions brief should commence. Hence, they sent the said brief, via facsimile, on April 11, 2008. Then, on April 18, 2008, they forwarded the original version of their brief and its attachments by mail. They indicated that the time limit of seven days established in Article 26(1) of the Rules of Procedure referred to the “sending” of the original documents and their attachments, without establishing a time limit within which they should be received by the Court. They clarified that, despite the opportune mailing of the documents, on April 18, 2008, the national postal service was in the process of regularizing its activities following a long strike by its employees, and this caused the delay in the Court’s receiving the correspondence. Accordingly, this delay “bore no relationship to the effort and diligence” of the representatives, who even provided the receipt for the mailing issued by the post office. Consequently, they asked the Court to reject the State’s claim in this regard. * 15 Infra notes 32 and 34. * *