16 Quiroga.” (supra paras. 82, 83, and 86). It also presented observations to the statement of Mrs. Edith Feria Tinta and, inter alia, it requested that the Court “add to the body of evidence only those elements of the statement that compl[ied] with the object mentioned by the Tribunal, excluding those that refer[red] to the matter still pending before the Commission.” 95. On July 3, 2006 the common intervener presented a brief, through which she asked the Court, in application of Article 51 of its Rules of Procedure, that “Mrs. Madelein Escolástica Valle, Mrs. Sabina Astete, and in general any person related to them [… abstain] from interfering with the witnesses of the [common intervener], intimidating and starting a campaign against the witnesses that have appeared before the Court […] during the [public] hearing,” as well as “that it take the measures necessary so that the copies recorded in the hearing [were] not object of public circulation as request[ed] by Mrs. Sabina Astete.” In this regard, the Court dismissed the first petition because it understood that it did not fit into the conditions established in the mentioned Article 51 of the Rules of Procedure regarding the protection of witnesses and expert witnesses. In what refers to the request regarding the “public circulation” of the recorded copies of the hearing, the Court dismissed it due to lack of admissibility, since it is a procedural act of a public nature. Likewise, it indicated that if the common intervener would have considered that there were exceptional circumstances that required that the Court receive the statements of the witnesses proposed by her in private, she should have indicated it to the Tribunal, with anticipation, so it could issue the corresponding ruling. 96. On July 4, 2006 the common intervener presented a brief, in which she stated, inter alia, that “the statement offered by Mrs. Edith Tinta [was] in its totality relevant in the matter of this case.” (supra paras. 82 and 94). 97. On July 5, 2006 the Commission presented a brief, in which it stated that “it did not have observations to make to the sworn statement of Mr. Jesús Ángel Julcamira Antonio.” (supra para. 87). 98. On July 7, 2006 the common intervener forwarded her observations to the written statement of the witness Madelein Escolástica Valle Rivera and the expert witness Christopher Birkbeck (supra paras. 80 and 84). 99. On July 10, 2006 the common intervener forwarded a copy of the translation to the Spanish language of the statement offered by the witness Stephen Bronstein (supra para. 73). 100. On July 11, 2006 the common intervener forwarded a copy of an appendix to the written statement of the expert witness Ana Deutsch, “which was not sent with the original by mistake” (supra para. 86) and, in relation with the sworn statement offered by Mr. Luis F. Jiménez, she requested, inter alia, that “his testimony be include[d] in it totality to the evidence offered in this case.” 101. On July 27, 2006 the Secretariat, following the President’s instructions, reminded the State and the common intervener of the documentation or explanations that the Court requested from them after the presentation of their final oral arguments in the public hearing on the merits and the possible reparations and costs held on June 26 and 27, 2006 (supra para. 93). Likewise, it asked the Commission and the common intervener to present, no later than August 3, 2006,