8 52. On July 8, 2004, the Inter-American Commission requested that the expert report of Héctor Fáundez Ledesma, presented by the State as an attachment to the brief with final arguments, should not be admitted. 53. On July 9, 2004, the State made some “comments” concerning the written arguments of the Commission and of the representatives of the alleged victim. On July 13, 2004, on the instructions of the President of the Court, the Secretariat informed the State, that the Court would not examine this brief as it had been submitted after the presentation of the final written arguments. 54. On July 13, 2004, on the instructions of the President, the Secretariat informed the parties that the Court would assess the pertinence of considering the report by Mr. Faúndez Ledesma at the appropriate moment of the proceeding (supra para. 51 and 52), and granted the Commission and the representatives of the alleged victim until July 21, 2004, to present their comments on the report. 55. On July 21, 2004, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights submitted its comments on the report by Héctor Faúndez Ledesma (supra para. 54). 56. On July 21, 2004, the representatives of the alleged victim presented comments, in English, on the report by Faúndez Ledesma (supra para. 54). The Spanish translation was forwarded on July 26. 57. On August 16, 2004, the State asked the Court “to reject the arguments presented by the Commission concerning the alleged time-barred nature of the report [by Faúndez Ledesma], and also the objection raised by the representatives of the alleged victim to consideration of the letter of opinion [...],” and requested that Mr. Faúndez Ledesma’s comments should be taken into consideration “in accordance with the rules that regulate the opinions of the parties’ advisers [...] and not in accordance with the rules relating to evidence,” since Peru did not claim that these comments “[should] receive the treatment corresponding to an expert report on law.” 58. On October 15, 2004, on the instructions of the President, the Secretariat requested the State to present information, as helpful evidence, on the state of emergency in force in the Department of Lima and in the Constitutional Province of Callao when Lori Berenson was detained, and the corresponding notification to the Organization of American States (OAS); the Code of Military Justice in force in 1995 and 1996; Decree Laws Nos. 26,447 and 26,248; and copies of the judgments of the Chamber for Terrorism Crimes. 59. On November 1, 2004, the State presented the documents requested by the Court as helpful evidence (supra para. 58). They consisted of the transcript of Supreme Decree No. 074-95-DE-CCFFAA issued on November 2, 1995, which extended the state of emergency in the Department of Lima and in the Constitutional Province of Callao; transcript of paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 subparagraph (f) of Article 2 of the 1993 Constitution of Peru; copy of note 7-5-M/387 issued on November 13, 1995, in which the Permanent Representative of Peru before the OAS notified the Executive Secretariat of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights about the issue of Supreme Decree No. 074-95-DE-CCFFAA of November 2, 1995; Code of Military Justice in force in 1995 and 1996; transcript of Laws Nos. 26,477 and 26,248 enacted on April 18 and November 12, 1995, respectively; and the copies requested from the Chamber for Terrorism Crimes.