9 for the elections for mayors, deputy mayors and municipal councilors, the Regional Electoral Council or any other national or regional authority, because the chapter entitled “Considerations” of the resolution issued by the Supreme Electoral Council on August 15, 2000, indicated that “on July 15, [2000,] the PPC/YATAMA Alliance presented candidates for mayors, deputy mayors and councilors” in the RAAS. 48. On April 29, 2005, on the instructions of the President, the Secretariat requested the Commission and the representatives to clarify and explain the differences in the lists of YATAMA candidates they had provided during the proceedings before the Court and informed them that, should any of the persons on either of the lists in the case file be excluded, they should explain this exclusion. 49. On May 5, 2005, in response to the request made by the President and the Court (supra paras. 22, 24, 39, 45 and 47), the State submitted a brief with which it provided “an attestation issued on [May 3, 2005], by the Director for Political Parties of the Supreme Electoral Council with the list containing the details of the candidates [that] the ‘PPC/YATAMA Alliance’ present[ed] to the Regional Electoral Council in order to participate in the November 2000 municipal elections in the South Atlantic Autonomous Region.” 50. On May 9, 2005, on the instructions of the President, the Secretariat informed the Commission and the representatives that, when providing the clarifications and explanations in response to the doubts raised in the notes of April 29, 2005 (supra para. 48) regarding the determination of the alleged victims in this case, they should also refer to the attestation of the names of “candidates for mayors and councilors” forwarded by the State on May 5, 2005 (supra para. 49), and explain any differences that might appear when comparing the different lists of alleged victims in the RAAS in the case file before the Court. 51. On May 13, 2005, in response to the Secretariat’s notes of April 29 and 9 May, 2005 (supra paras. 48 and 50), the representatives forwarded a brief with clarifications and explanations relating to the questions raised in relation to the different lists of candidates presented during the proceedings before the Court. On May 16, 2005, in response to the Secretariat’s notes, the Commission submitted a brief indicating that “the statement included in the final arguments brief with regard to the fact that ‘the alleged victims were candidates for mayors, deputy mayors and councilors’ presented by YATAMA in the municipal elections on November 5, 2000, in the [RAAN] and the [RAAS], was the result of a position of principle,” because “the Commission considered that the injured party, which it represented, was in a better position to present the important detailed clarifications required [...] during the public hearing in the case.” 52. On May 18, 2005, the State forwarded two briefs referring to the brief presented by the representatives of the alleged victims on May 13, 2005 (supra para. 51). 53. On May 19, 2005, the State presented a brief in which it transmitted its “comments on the communications [… of the] Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and CEJIL [submitted] on May 16 and 13, [2005]” (supra para. 51), and indicated that “at no stage of the proceedings had it provided helpful evidence, and wished for this to be recorded in the respective file.”