7 observations and oral final arguments of the Commission, the representatives of the alleged victims, and the State, respectively. 9. Request for Provisional Measures. – Through communication of August 6, 2014 the representatives asked the Court to order “precautionary measures” in favor of the Garífuna Community of Barra Vieja, since that Community was “about to be evicted by elements assigned to the Ministry of Security of Honduras.” On October 14, 2014 the Court dismissed the mentioned request given it was inadmissible in consideration of the fact that it could not be concluded that there was a relationship with the object of the contentious case of the Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz, given that said case “does not refer to the Garífuna Community of Barra Vieja or the lands inhabited by that Community.”8 10. Request for accumulation. – Through communication of August 11, 2014 the representatives asked the Court to merge the cases of the Garífuna Community of Punta Piedra and the Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz, given they considered they met the assumptions defined in Article 30 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. In this sense, through a note of the Secretariat of August 29, 2014, the parties were informed that by virtue of the specific and distinct characteristics of each case, as well as the procedural stage in which they were in, the Court in full considered the merging unnecessary. 11. Amici Curiae. – The Court received six amici curiae briefs, presented by: 1) Keri Brondo; 2) Mark David Anderson; 3) the State of Guatemala;9 4) Christopher Loperena; 5) the Honduras Accompaniment Project (PROAH),10 and 6) Sandra Cuffe. 12. Final written arguments and observations. – On June 20, 2014, the representatives and the State presented their respective final written arguments, and the Inter-American Commission forwarded its final written observations. On that same day, the representatives sent some annexes to said arguments11 and on June 23, 2014 the Commission presented an “extension of José Aylwin’s expert testimony.” On August 11, 2014, the State presented its observations to the annexes forwarded by the representatives. On their part, neither the representatives nor the Commission presented observations to what was forwarded. 13. Evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case. – Through a note from the Secretariat of July 18, 2014 the State was asked to provide certain information as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case, which was received at the Secretariat on August 1, 2014.12 14. Contributions in application of the Aid Fund. – Through a note of the Secretariat on September 26, 2014 the State was forwarded the report on the contributions made in application of the Legal Aid Fund for Victims, granting the State until October 2, 2014 to present the corresponding observations. Through its brief of that same date, the State informed “it did not have any observations to make” to that report. 15. Visit diligence to the Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz. – The State asked the Court at the public hearing that “in order to facilitate adjudication of the case, […] to have a fair judgment according to the legal reality, […] it carry out an inspection in loco to verify respect to the precautionary measures ordered by the Inter-American Commission, […] the physical reality of the communities, the protected areas ordered and turned into national Matter of the Garífuna de Barra Vieja Community. Provisional Measures regarding Honduras. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October 14, 2014, whereas clause number ten. 8 The brief was signed by Antonio Arenales Forno, President of the Presidential Commission for the Coordination of the Executive’s Power in Human Rights Issues (COPREDEH). 9 10 The brief was signed by Marine Pezet, Coordinator of PROAH. 11 The originals of the annexes forwarded by the representatives were received on June 25, 2014. 12 The originals of the mentioned evidence were received on August 12, 2014.