6 20. On July 2, 2003, under the provisions of Article 35(1) subparagraphs (d) and (e) of the Rules of Procedure, the Secretariat notified the application to the Center for Justice and International Law and the Asociación Pro-Búsqueda de Niños y Niñas Desaparecidos, in their capacity as the original petitioners and representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin, and advised them that they had 30 days to present their brief with requests, arguments and evidence (hereinafter “requests and arguments brief”). 21. On July 23, 2003, the State appointed Ricardo Acevedo Peralta as its Agent and Hugo Carrillo Corleto as its deputy Agent, and advised that it had appointed Alejandro Montiel Argüello as judge ad hoc. 22. On September 1, 2003, having requested an extension which the President granted, the representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin submitted their requests and arguments brief. In this brief, they stated that they endorsed what the Commission had requested in the application and asked the Court to order certain reparations. 23. On October 31, 2003, after additional time had been granted, the State submitted a brief filing preliminary objections, answering the application, and with observations on the requests and arguments brief. El Salvador filed the following preliminary objections: 1) “Lack of jurisdiction Ratione temporis,” which it divided into: “1(1) “Non-retroactivity of the application of the crime of forced disappearance of persons” and “1(2) Lack of jurisdiction owing to the terms in which the State of El Salvador recognizes the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights”; 2) “Lack of jurisdiction rationae materiae”; 3) “Inadmissibility of the application owing to ambiguity or inconsistency between the object and the plea, and the body of the text,” which it dived into: “3(1) Inadmissibility of the application owing to ambiguity or inconsistency between the object and the plea, and the body of the text” and “3(2) Inconsistency between the claims of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and those of the representatives of the alleged victims”; and 4) “Failure to exhaust domestic remedies”; which it divided into: “4(1) Justified delay in the corresponding decision” and “4(2) Inappropriateness of the remedy of habeas corpus.” 24. On November 17, 2003, the Secretariat, under Article 36(4) of the Rules of Procedure, granted the Commission and the representatives 30 days to present their written arguments on the preliminary objections filed by the State (supra para. 23). 25. On December 9, 2003, the Commission requested an extension for the presentation of the written arguments on the preliminary objections (supra paras. 23 and 24). The same day, on the President’s instructions, the Secretariat granted the Commission and the representatives the extension requested by the former, until January 16, 2004. 26. On January 16, 2004, the Commission submitted its written arguments on the preliminary objections filed by the State (supra paras. 23, 24 and 25). In this brief, the Commission requested the Inter-American Court to “reject the four preliminary objections filed by the State[, …] on the grounds that they lacked either a juridical or a factual basis.” 27. On January 16, 2004, the representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin submitted their written arguments on the preliminary objections filed by