14. On April 28, 2008 Judge Alirio Abreu Burelli, acting Vice-President at that time for the present case, urgently informed the Tribunal that due to a grave and unexpected reason of force majeure he had to cancel his trip to the Headquarters of the Inter-American Court, and that he could not participate in the XXXIV Extraordinary Session to be held on May 1, 2008, date on which the Court would deliberate and study the possibility to issue a judgment in the present proceedings. Later, on May 2, 2008, Judge Alirio Abreu Burelli sent a note in which he stated that considering that “[i]t is the second time that due to completely inevitable causes it is impossible for him to be present in the ruling of said case,” he asked the Tribunal to “remove him from [his] duties as Judge in these proceedings.” 15. On the same May 2, 2008, Judge García Ramírez, acting President in the present case, asked the Presidency of the Tribunal, Judge Medina Quiroga, to formally inform him of the order of precedence of the judges that were elected in the XXXVI Regular Session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, held on June 4th to 6, 2006. On that same day Judge Medina Quiroga officially informed Judge García Ramírez that Judge Leonardo A. Franco had precedence among the judges elected on that opportunity. Having asked Judge Leonardo A. Franco he expressed his willingness to form part of the Tribunal to hear the proceedings of interpretation of the judgment in the present case, and through Order of May 3, 2008 the Court decided “to accept the resignation to hear the present case presented by Judge Alirio Abreu Burelli” and “include Judge Leonardo A. Franco so that he can hear the present proceedings of interpretation of a judgment in substitution of Judge Alirio Abreu Burelli.”3 All this pursuant to Articles 13, 16(1) and 59(3) of the Rules of Procedure. 16. On July 23, 2008 Peru sent a brief of “additional grounds to the request,” and copies of the Judgment of October 13, 2006 in dossier No. 560-03 of the National Criminal Chamber and of the Supreme Executory Court of December 14, 2007 of the Second Transitory Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Republic (Appeal for Annulment No. 5385-06). 17. On the same July 23, 2008, the Secretariat forwarded said brief and its appendixes to the parties and informed Peru that they were presented to the InterAmerican Court in a timely manner so that it could decide on its admissibility. Additionally, the parties were given time until July 30th to present their observations. 18. On July 30, 2008 the representatives presented their observations requesting that the inadmissibility of said brief be declared, or, in its defect, that it be dismissed due to lack of reason and grounds. * * * 19. The Tribunal observes that the communications mentioned in paragraphs 9, 11 through 13 and 16 of the present Judgment constitute written procedural acts that are not foreseen in the American Convention or in the Rules or Procedure, nor do they respond to a request of the Tribunal or its President. Despite the aforementioned, 3 3, 2008. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 5