4 12. On December 22, 1997, the Commission decided to submit the case to the Court. III PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COURT 13. The Commission presented the application to the Court on January 9, 1998. In it, it appointed Oscar Luján Fappiano as its delegate, and Jorge E. Taiana, Executive Secretary, and Christina M. Cerna as its lawyers, with Alberto Borea Odría as their assistant. 14. On January 19, 1998, the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) informed the Commission that, following preliminary examination of the application, the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”) had decided that it was not possible to proceed to notify the State since some of the documents that appeared on the list of evidence had not been submitted to the Court. The President granted the Commission a period of 20 days to correct this defect, pursuant to the provisions of Article 34 of the Rules of Procedure. On January 21, 1998, the Commission complied with the requirement of the President. 15. The State was notified of the application on January 22, 1998. At this time, the annexes to the application were forwarded to the State, with the sole exception of the two videotapes, corresponding to annexes “B 51” and “B 54”, which were forwarded on February 11 that year. 16. Pursuant to Article 35.1.e of the Rules of Procedure, the application was notified to the alleged victim in the instant case on February 11, 1998. 17. On February 20, 1998, Peru informed the Court that it had appointed David Pezúa Vivanco as ad hoc Judge; he subsequently resigned from this office (infra 24). 18. On March 20, 1998, the State appointed Jorge Hawie Soret as its agent in the instant case and submitted the following preliminary objections: (1) (2) (3) (4) the remedies under domestic jurisdiction had not been exhausted when the [Commission] agreed to process the petition of the alleged victim; and inappropriate legal action [;] incompetence and jurisdiction[;] res judicata[; and] lack of a previous claim before the Commission. Furthermore, the State requested the Court to rule that the application should be filed. 19. On April 20, 1998, the Commission submitted its observations, requesting that the Court should reject the preliminary objections that had been presented “in all of their parts”. 20. On May 29, 1998, the State submitted its reply to the application in which it refuted the claims of the Commission. Peru declared that the decision issued in the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, referred to in the application submitted by the Commission, was illegal, non-executable and null ipso jure, since the alleged victim was detained and sentenced as the result of an order issued by a competent jurisdictional body. With regard to the other allegations of the Commission, the