11 49. On October 25, 2005, the representatives forwarded the helpful evidence requested on September 29, 2005, and also their final written arguments. The originals of the briefs and their attachments were received by the Secretariat on October 28, 2005. In these briefs, the representatives alleged the existence of new alleged victims in relation to Articles 21 and 22 of the Convention. 50. On April 19, 2006, the Commission appointed Víctor Abramovich as delegate. 51. On June 26, 2006, on the instructions of the President and in the terms of Article 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Secretariat of the Court requested the State and the representatives to forward, by June 29, 2006, at the latest, official information concerning life expectancy and the minimum wage in force in Colombia for each year from 1996 to 2006. 52. On June 28 and 29, 2006, the State and the representatives, respectively, presented the helpful evidence requested by the President (supra para. 44). 53. On June 28, 2006, Judge ad hoc Granados Peña advised the Court that, for reasons beyond his control, he would be unable to attend the deliberation of the judgment in this case and referred to Article 19(3) of the Rules of Procedure. He also attached a document stating his position concerning the case. The Court in plenary was informed of this communication. 54. On June 29, 2006, the Court considered the reasons why the Judge ad hoc was unable to attend the deliberation of the instant case, bearing in mind that he had been opportunely and duly convened, that his communication was received only one day before the beginning of this deliberation, and that the Court is not permanent and establishes the agenda of each session for the whole year in advance, so that it was impossible to reschedule the deliberation of the Ituango case. The Court therefore decided to continue hearing the case without his participation, in application of Article 19(3) of its Rules of Procedure. V PRIOR CONSIDERATIONS 55. The Court will now proceed to determine: (a) the implications of the State’s acknowledgement of international responsibility; (b) the scope of the subsisting dispute, and (c) the alleged victims in this case. a) Acknowledgement of international responsibility 56. Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure establishes: If the respondent informs the Court of its acquiescence to the claims of the party that has brought the case as well as to the claims of the representatives of the alleged victims, his next of kin or representatives, the Court, after hearing the opinions of the other parties to the case shall decide whether such acquiescence and its juridical effects are acceptable. In that event, the Court shall determine the appropriate reparations and costs. 57. The Inter-American Court, in exercise of its contentious function, applies and interprets the American Convention and, when a case has been submitted to its