4 Krsticevic, Soraya Long Saborío, Luguelly Cunillera and Juan Carlos Gutiérrez1 and they were informed that, according to Article 35(4) of the Rules of Procedure,2 they had 30 days in which to present the brief with requests, arguments and evidence. Furthermore, on August 6, 2003, in accordance with Article 35(1)(d) of the Rules of Procedure, GAM, as the original claimant, was notified. 19. On September 23, 2003, the State designated Oscar Luján Fappiano as Judge ad hoc. On September 24, 2003, the Secretariat, on the instructions of the President, requested the Commission and the representatives to submit any observations they deemed pertinent, since the time limit granted to the State to appoint a Judge ad hoc had expired on September 7, 2003. 20. On October 6, 2003, after an extension had been granted, the representatives of the victim and his next of kin presented the brief with requests, arguments and evidence together with attachments. In this brief, they requested the Court to declare that the State had violated Articles 1(1), 4, 5, 7, 17, 19, 8 and 25 of the American Convention. They also requested the Court to declare that the State violated Article I of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance. Furthermore, they requested specific reparations and the payment of costs and expenses. 21. On October 17, 2003, the Commission presented its comments concerning the State’s designation of the Judge ad hoc, in which it indicated that the “Court should decide the issue of the time-barred nature of the designation of the Judge ad hoc according to consistent practice and its Rules of Procedure.” The representatives did not forward comments in this regard. 22. On November 6, 2003, the State submitted its brief answering the application, in which it filed three preliminary objections,3 with attachments. In this brief, Guatemala “set out preliminary objections and made a partial acquiescence” by the State to the application submitted by the Commission. In addition, it requested that, based on the preliminary objections it had filed, the Court should declare the application presented by the Commission inadmissible. Lastly, the State made an offer regarding reparations. On November 7, 2003, the Secretariat, on the instructions of the President, granted the Commission and the representatives of the victim and his next of kin 30 days from reception of this brief to present their written arguments on the preliminary objections filed by the State. 23. On December 3, 2003, the Secretariat informed the State, on the instructions of all the members of the Court, that the designation of the Judge ad hoc had been rejected, in accordance with Articles 10(4) of the Statute ad 18(3) of the Rules of Procedure, because it had been presented after the statutory time limit had expired. 1 While this case was being processed, CEJIL made some changes in the representatives it had designated before the Court. 2 Rules of Procedure adopted by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights at its forty-ninth regular session in an Order of November 24, 2000, which entered into force on June 1, 2001. This Article, among others, was reformed by the Court during its LXI Regular Session, by an Order of November 25, 2003. This reform entered into force as of January 1, 2004. 3 The preliminary objections filed by the State were as follows: “Lack of competence Ratione Temporis of the Court with regard to the facts, which preceded the declaration accepting the Court’s obligatory jurisdiction; lack of active legal standing, and failure to exhaust regular domestic remedies.”