7 35. On November 16, 2004 the Commission forwarded a brief, through which it presented the information requested through note of October 15, 2004 (supra para. 34) in relation to the appointment of a common intervener of the representatives of the alleged victims in the present case. On November 22, 2004 the Commission presented the appendixes to said brief. 36. On January 14, 2005 the Secretariat, following the President’s instructions, forwarded notes to Mrs. Mónica Feria Tinta and Sabina Astete, accredited as representatives at the time of the presentation of the Commission’s application, and informed them that the application was in the stage of its preliminary examination, pursuant to Article 34 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court. Likewise, it indicated to them that from the initial analysis of the mentioned application, the President had verified that in the procedure before the Commission there were several problems of representation, which continued before the Tribunal and he referred to those problems. Similarly, they were asked to present, no later than January 24, 2005, a final list of the alleged victims they would represent, regarding which the mentioned ladies certified that they knew their true will to be represented by them. 37. On January 24, 2005 Mrs. Sabina Astete presented a brief, in response to that requested by the President (supra para. 36), through which she presented the final list of alleged victims “represent[ed] by [Messrs.] Douglas Cassel and Peter Erlinder in consultation with [Mrs. Sabina Astete] and [Mrs.] Berta Flores.” The appendixes to said brief were presented on January 26, 2005. 38. On January 25, 2005 Mrs. Mónica Feria Tinta presented a brief and its appendixes, in response to that requested by the President (supra para. 36), through which she presented the final list of alleged victims she represents, regarding which “she certified that she knows their will” to be represented by her. 39. On April 8, 2005 the Secretariat, following the President’s instructions, granted Mrs. Feria Tinta and Astete a non-postponable term until April 29, 2005 to present all the powers of attorney they still had to forward in order for the Court to decide what corresponds. Likewise, they were informed that if they sent new powers of attorney after the expiration of the term granted, said powers of attorney would not change the decision made by the President or the Court. 40. On October 4, 2005 the Secretariat informed the Inter-American Commission, the State, and the representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin that, in what refers to the disagreement of the representatives to appoint a common intervener, pursuant to Article 23 of the Rules of Procedure of the Tribunal, it ruled that the common intervener that would represent all the alleged victims would be Mrs. Mónica Feria Tinta since: from the analysis of all the powers of attorney in the case file presented before the Court, it could be concluded that Mrs. Feria Tinta represented the greater number of alleged victims that granted a power of attorney; she is an alleged victim and she assumed a great part of the representation during the proceedings before the Commission; and there were some problems with the powers of attorney in favor of Mrs. Sabina Astete, since they did not express with clarity the will of the grantor and the way they were drawn up led to mistakes or confusion regarding said persons, since they led to the understanding that Mrs. Feria Tinta had decided not to represent them. Likewise, they were informed that this should not imply a limitation to the right of the alleged victims or their next of kin to present before the Court their pleadings and arguments, as well as to offer the corresponding evidence, and that the common intervener “would be [the] only one