5 13. On May 26, 2008, the representatives of the alleged victim asked the Court “to abstain from considering” the amicus curiae submitted on April 28, 2007, “because it was received long after the date on which the file of this case before the Court had been closed, on March 10, 2008 [and] the briefs submitted by third parties should respect the time frames and procedures in each case, and not be submitted late.” On the same grounds, on July 19, 2008, the representatives raised an objection to the amicus curiae sent to the Court on July 7, 2008. 14. Regarding the alleged late submission of the briefs of April 28 and July 7, 2008, the Court reiterates that amici curiae are submitted by third parties who are not parties to the dispute who provide the Court with arguments or opinions that can serve as relevant information in relation to legal aspects that are being aired before it. As the Court has indicated recently,4 amici curiae can be submitted at any time before the deliberation of the corresponding judgment. In addition, pursuant to the Court’s practice, amici curiae can even refer to matters relating to compliance with judgment. Moreover, the Court emphasizes that the cases it hears have a general importance or interest that justifies the greatest possible deliberation of publicly-debated arguments. Hence, amici curiae have significant value in strengthening the inter-American system for the protection of human rights, through the considerations provided in the Court’s possession. Consequently, the Court rejects the objection submitted by the representatives based on late presentation. If appropriate, the Court will take into account the representatives’ observations on the contents of these briefs when it examines the corresponding issues. III PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 15. The State filed several preliminary objections that the Court has proceeded to organize and examine according to the affinity or nature of the objections and a reasonable criterion of convenience in order to consider them. A) FIRST PRELIMINARY OBJECTION Actual enforcement of the law as a requirement for the competence of the Court 16. The State alleged that, in the instant case, there was no act that enforced the law, because Mr. Castañeda Gutman requested registration of his candidacy in March 2004, when the electoral process in which he wished to participate, and which would be held in 2006, had not commenced. This request was time-barred as regards both the start of the electoral process on October 6, 2005, and the registration of candidacies, which began on January 1, 2006, pursuant to the electoral laws. Consequently, the law was not enforced because, when responding to this time-barred request, the electoral administrative authority only informed Mr. Castañeda Gutman about the provisions of the respective norms, since the fact that his request was time-barred conditioned the other requirements. The fact that, in its response the electoral authority referred to the legal requirement to be nominated by a party, did not imply the enforcement of this provision to the detriment of the alleged victim, because, in that case, the electoral process would, at least, have had to have commenced and Mr. Castañeda Gutman to have presented his request during the stage corresponding to the registration of candidacies. The Inter-American Court is only competent to hear a case if the law in force was applied in a specific case, and cannot 4 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177, para. 16.