8 alleged victims in the case, because the Commission’s list differed from that provided by the representatives. In this regard, it also reminded the State that it had not forwarded the list of the RAAS candidates, and had not indicated whether there was any reason it could not do so. 40. On April 8, 2005, in response to the requests of the President and the Court (supra paras. 22, 24 and 39), the State submitted a brief with which it provided several documents. Regarding the copy of the Regional Committee’s decision (supra para. 39), in its brief the State indicated that, “the Regional Committee had not issued a decision.” The documents submitted by the State included an attestation issued on April 5, 2005, by the Director General for Political Parties of the Supreme Electoral Council, certifying that “according to the candidate registration records prepared by this General Directorate for the election for mayors, deputy mayors and members of the Municipal Councils in the elections of November 2000, the Yapti Tasba Masraka Nanih Asla Takanka (YATAMA) party did not present candidates in the South Atlantic Autonomous Region (RAAS) to the Supreme Electoral Council.” 41. On April 8, 2005, the State presented its final written arguments on preliminary objections and merits, reparations, and costs (supra para. 28), and provided copies of three documents that it had attached to its first brief of April 8, 2005 (supra para. 40), as well as two new documents. 42. On April 8, 2005, the Office of the Ombudsman of Nicaragua submitted an amicus curiae brief. 43. On April 11, 2005, the representatives forwarded their final written arguments on preliminary objections and merits, reparations, and costs (supra para. 28), with attachments. 44. On April 12, 2005, the Commission forwarded its final written arguments on preliminary objections and merits, reparations, and costs (supra para. 28). 45. On April 15, 2005, on the instructions of the President, the Secretariat requested the State to forward, as soon as possible, any list or attestation it had with regard to the candidates presented by YATAMA in the RAAS, even if they were documents that had not been presented directly to the Supreme Electoral Council but rather to a regional electoral authority, or attestations that had not been issued by the said Council, but by a regional electoral authority (supra paras. 22, 24 and 39). 46. On April 21, 2005, in response to the Secretariat’s communication of April 15, 2005, the State forwarded a brief indicating that the Secretariat “in this regard, had confused the RAAN with the RAAS”; consequently, it provided a new attestation issued on April 20, 2005, by the Director General for Political Parties of the Supreme Electoral Council, indicating that “for the elections for mayors, deputy mayors and members of the Municipal Councils [...] of November 2000, the Yapti Tasba Masraka Nanih Asla Takanka (YATAMA) party did not present candidates before the Supreme Electoral Council, or before the Electoral Council of the South Atlantic Autonomous Region (RAAS).” 47. On April 27, 2005, on the instructions of the President, the Secretariat reiterated to the State (supra paras. 22, 24, 39 and 45) that it should present an official copy of the list of candidates that the alliance between YATAMA and the Coastal People Party had presented to the Supreme Electoral Council, the Directorate General