9 37. On September 3, 2003, the State appointed Ambassador Rhadys Abreu de Polanco Judge ad hoc and indicated that “[her] functions are not incompatible with her designation as judge ad hoc.” The State also designated José Marcos Iglesias Iñigo, Minister Councilor, as Agent, and Anabella de Castro, Minister Councilor, Responsible for Human Rights, as Deputy Agent.6 38. On October 13, 2003, having been granted an extension, the representatives submitted their brief with requests and arguments. The representatives alleged that, in addition to the rights indicated by the Inter-American Commission in the application, the State had allegedly violated the rights embodied in Articles 17 (Rights of the Family), 18 (Right to a Name) and 26 (Progressive Development) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) and 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) thereof. They also requested the Court to order the State to adopt specific measures of reparation and reimburse costs and expenses. Subsequently, in their final written arguments submitted on April 14, 2005, the representatives indicated that the State had violated Articles 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) and 12 (Freedom of Conscience and Religion) of the American Convention (infra para. 49). 39. On November 13, 2003, the State submitted its brief filing preliminary objections, answering the application and with observations on the brief with requests and arguments (hereinafter “brief answering the application”), in which it filed two preliminary objections, which it called “[…] failure to exhaust the State’s domestic remedies […]” and “[n]on-compliance [with the] friendly settlement [proposal] submitted by the Commission and accepted by the State […].” Subsequently, during the public hearing, the State alleged the preliminary objection of lack of competence ratione temporis. 40. On November 19, 2003, the representatives presented an “objection to the State’s designation of Ambassador Rhadys I. Abreu de Polanco, as Judge ad hoc of the Court,” and indicated that there was a situation of incompatibility and conflict of interests. On December 19, 2003, Rhadys I. Abreu de Polanco presented a note in which she rejected the objection to her designation as judge ad hoc. On December 19, 2003, the Commission forwarded its comments on the brief on the objection of the Judge ad hoc and requested the Court “to proceed to decide on the incompatibility and impediment” of Mrs. Abreu de Polanco to exercise the position of judge ad hoc. 41. On May 4, 2004, the Court issued an Order in which it decided that “the participation of Rhadys Iris Abreu de Polanco in the proceeding before the InterAmerican Commission with regard to this case resulted in an impediment to her exercising the functions of Judge ad hoc.” It therefore invited the State to designate another judge ad hoc within 30 days; the Dominican Republic did not do so. 42. On January 21, 2004, having been granted an extension, the Commission and the representatives submitted their respective briefs with arguments on the preliminary objections filed by the Dominican Republic, in which they requested the Court to reject them and to continue processing the merits stage of the case. 6 While this case was being processed, the State made changes in those it had designated to represent them before the Court.