4 with its appendixs to the State and informed it about the time limits for answering the application and appointing its representatives in the proceeding. On the instruction of the President, the Secretariat also informed the State of its right to appoint a judge ad hoc to take part in the consideration of the case. 15. On July 8, 2003, pursuant to the provisions of Article 35(1)(d) and (e) of the Rules of Procedure, the Secretariat notified the application to Carolina Loayza Tamayo and Javier J. Ríos Castillo, as representatives of the alleged victim, and advised them that they had 30 days to submit their brief with requests, arguments and evidence (hereinafter “brief with requests and arguments”). 16. On August 6, 2003, the State appointed Sócrates Hernán Grillo Bockos and Doris M. Yalle Jorges as agent and deputy agent, respectively. The State also proposed César Rodrigo Landa Arroyo as Judge ad hoc to hear the instant case. 17. Having been granted an extension, the alleged victim’s representatives forwarded their brief with requests and arguments on September 3, 2003. 18. After it had also been granted an extension, the State submitted its answer to the application on October 8, 2003. 19. On December 19, 2003, the alleged victim’s representatives forwarded documentation “originating after the presentation of their brief” with requests and arguments. 20. On February 20, 2004, César Rodrigo Landa Arroyo, Judge ad hoc proposed by the State to hear the case (supra para. 16), advised that he had been called on to assume the office of Deputy Minister of Justice of Peru, which was incompatible with his participation as Judge ad hoc. 21. On March 2, 2004, the State consulted about the possibility of granting a “temporary suspension” to the Judge ad hoc appointed to the case, while he performed his functions as Deputy Minister of Justice. 22. On March 5, 2004, on the instructions of the President, the Secretariat informed the State that “in this case, the temporary suspension of the position of judge ad hoc was not admissible, because, according to Article 18(1) of the Statute of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the positions and activities of members or high-ranking officials of the Executive branch of Government are incompatible with the exercise of the functions of a judge of the Inter-American Court.” Consequently, pursuant to the practice of the Court, the State was invited to appoint a new judge ad hoc within 30 days, in the understanding that, if it did not do so, it would be considered that the State had waived this possibility. The State did not appoint a new judge ad hoc. 23. On May 19, 2004, the President issued an order in which, in accordance with Article 47(3) of the Rules of Procedure, he called upon María Teresa De La Cruz Flores and Abdón Segundo Salazar Morán, proposed as witnesses by the Commission, to provide their testimony by statements made before notary public (affidavits), which should be forwarded to the Court by June 8, 2004, at the latest; the affidavits would then be forwarded to the alleged victim’s representatives and to the State so that they could submit any comments they deemed pertinent. The President also called upon Mario Pablo Rodríguez Hurtado and José Daniel Rodríguez