64 April 15 and 27, 2005 (supra paras. 22, 24, 39, 45 and 47). In addition, during the public hearing held on March 9 and 10, 2005, the Court called upon the parties to present the necessary information in their final written arguments, so that the Court could determine the list of the alleged victims in this case; a request that was recalled to the parties in a note from the Secretariat of March 31, 2005 (supra para. 39). The persons proposed by YATAMA to take part in the 2000 municipal elections were not registered as candidates by the Supreme Electoral Council, because it considered that the party had not complied with the legal requirements. Thus, none of them took part in the elections held on November 4 that year. Consequently, the lists, which the State was asked to present, could not refer to registered candidates. 131. In the various requests for the lists of candidates, the State was reminded that, in the RAAS, the list had been presented by the alliance of the Coastal People Party and the YATAMA party; therefore, it should be able to provide these lists irrespective of whether or not YATAMA and its candidates had participated in the 2000 municipal elections, and also that these were documents that had not been presented by YATAMA directly to the Supreme Electoral Council, but to a regional authority, or attestations that had not been issued by the said Council, but by a regional authority. 132. Following the first two requests for collaboration in forwarding the said lists in notes dated May 12 and December 9, 2004 (supra paras. 22 and 24), on March 1, 2005, the State provided a document issued by the RAAN Regional Electoral Council on July 15, 2000, stating that, on that day, “the legal representative of the YATAMA regional party presented the registration sheets of the candidates for the elections [...] in the municipalities of Waspam Río Coco, Puerto Cabezas, Prinzapolka, Rosita and Bonanza,” and indicated their names (supra para. 33). Accordingly, it was possible to have complete information on the persons proposed by YATAMA as candidates in the RAAN, given that the Court already had the official list of alternate or substitute candidates (supra para. 128). Nevertheless, the State did not provide any information on the list of proposed candidates in the RAAS. 133. Finally, on May 5, 2005 (supra para. 49), after the Court or its President had made five requests (supra paras. 22, 24, 39, 45 and 47), the State delivered an attestation issued on May 3, 2005, by the Director General for Political Parties of the Supreme Electoral Council, which contained the names of the “candidates for mayors and councilors of the South Atlantic Autonomous Region, presented [… t]o the South Atlantic Regional Electoral Council in Bluefields (an organization that is not legally empowered to receive candidacies) by the Coastal People Party Alliance (PPC) and to the Supreme Electoral Council on July 17, 2000, after the time limited had expired,”134 134. The Court has established that the parties must provide the Court opportunely with the evidence that it requests, so that it has the maximum information to evaluate 134 With regard to the persons proposed for registration as candidates in the RAAS, the Court notes that, the attestation issued on May 3, 2005, by the Director for Political Parties of the Supreme Electoral Council with regard to the RAAS (supra para. 49), contains the names of those who were proposed by the alliance of the PPC and YATAMA parties, and it is not possible to distinguish who belonged to each of these parties. Even though the Commission does not include the manner in which the PPC and its candidates were excluded from participating in the 2000 municipal elections as an act that violates the Convention, it does include as alleged victims all the persons who were proposed by the alliance and who YATAMA requested the Supreme Electoral Council to accept as YATAMA candidates, when the PPC was subsequently excluded.