65 the facts and substantiate its decisions.135 In proceedings on human rights violations, the applicant may not be able to provide evidence that can only be obtained with the cooperation of the State, which, in many cases, controls the means to clarify facts that have occurred on its territory.136 135. The Court considers that the State had the required official information and that, despite the Court’s repeated requests based on Article 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure, it failed to present this information in a timely manner, invoking unsubstantiated arguments (supra paras. 23, 40 and 46). It stated that YATAMA had not fulfilled the legal requirements for participating in the elections (some of which were not even considered by the Supreme Electoral Council when it decided not to register YATAMA’s candidates (supra para. 124(51)), and it acted as if it did not understand that, when it was requested to provide information on the candidates proposed by YATAMA in the RAAS, it should provide this, even though YATAMA had presented them in alliance with the PPC. 136. This omission by the State caused unnecessary difficulties in determining the alleged victims and signified non-compliance with the obligation to cooperate with the Court, owing to the failure to provide the information required in a timely manner. It is not for the State, or any other party, to determine the merits and consequences of providing documents requested by the Court or its President. 137. At the date on which this judgment is delivered, the Court holds official documentation determining the names of the alleged victims, so this problem has been resolved. 138. The Court has taken into consideration the following probative elements to determine the persons who were presented by YATAMA as candidates to take part in the 2000 municipal elections: (a) the official receipt dated July 18, 2000, for the delivery of the “original documentation of municipal substitute candidates for mayor, deputy mayor and councilors of the North Atlantic municipalities,” that the President of the RAAN Regional Electoral Council forwarded to the Director General for Political Parties of the Supreme Electoral Council; (b) the document issued by the RAAN Regional Electoral Council on July 15, 2000, stating that the same day “the legal representative […] of the […] YATAMA regional party presented the registration sheets of the candidates for elections […] in the municipalities of Waspam Río Coco, Puerto Cabezas, Prinzapolka, Rosita and Bonanza”; (c) attestation of May 3, 2005, issued by the Director General for Political Parties of the Supreme Electoral Council, containing 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 […] by the Coastal People Party Alliance (PPC) and to the Supreme Electoral Council on July 17, 2000, after the time limit had expired”; (d) list of candidates presented by the petitioners in the proceedings before the Commission; (e) list of candidates presented by the Commission as attachment 1 to its application; (f) list of candidates included by the representatives in the brief with requests and arguments; 135 Cf. Case of Tibi. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 83; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 93; and Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 5, para. 77. 136 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 135, para. 83; Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 5, para. 77; and Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objections, merits and reparations. (Art. 67 American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 26, 2003. Series C No. 102, para. 47.