16. On June 28, 2012, the Secretariat of the Court, following the instructions of the President, required the State to submit certain documents on domestic legislation, as well as a copy of the entire record of the criminal proceedings against Mr. Mohamed, in order to facilitate adjudication. 17. On July 6, 2012, the Court received an amicus curiae brief from the Chair of Human Rights of the Faculty of Law of the National University of Cuyo.10 18. On July 23, 2012, the State and the representatives submitted their final written arguments and the Inter-American Commission presented its final written observations. In addition, the State submitted its observations to the statements rendered by affidavits, as well as some of the documents requested as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case (supra para. 15), as well as its observations the statements rendered by affidavits. 19. On July 26, 2012, the aforementioned briefs and final observations were conveyed to the parties and to the Inter-American Commission and the State was ordered to submit the missing documentation requested previously to facilitate adjudication of the case, no later than August 6, 2012. The State presented part of these documents on July 30, 2012. On August 6, 2012, said documents were sent to the representatives and the Commission and the State was asked, once again, to submit, no later than August 10, 2012, the missing documents and legible copies of some of the pages of the acquittal order issued on August 30, 1994, by the Correctional Court No. 3, Secretariat Nº 60, of the Federal Capital, which were illegible. On August 10, 2012, the State provided “improved copies” of those pages and made some clarifications with respect to the documents requested to facilitate adjudication of the case. It also indicated that it “does not have a complete copy” of the record of the criminal proceedings against Mr. Mohamed given that “so much time had passed and said records [were] sent to the General Criminal Archive of the National Judiciary Office to be destroyed.” On August 21, 2012, the “improved copies” of the pages and the information submitted by the State were forwarded to the representatives and the Commission, and a deadline was set for them to submit any observations they deemed pertinent with respect to the aforementioned evidence. On September 24, 2012, after an extension was granted, the Commission indicated that “it h [ad] no comments to make on the information provided by the State” to facilitate adjudication. The representatives did not submit any observations in this regard. 20. On September 20, 2012, the Secretariat, following the instructions of the President, informed the State about the expenditures covered by the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund in this case and, in accordance with the provisions of Article 5 of the Court’s Rules for the Operation of the Fund, granted the State a deadline to submit any observations it deemed pertinent. On October 15, 2012, the State indicated that it had “no comments to make regarding the [aforementioned] expenditures.” III PRELIMINARY OBJECTION ALLEGED INABILITY OF THE COURT TO EXAMINE THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8(4) OF THE INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS Arguments of the State and observations of the Inter-American Commission and the representatives 10 The brief was filed by Messrs. Diego Jorge Lavado, Daniel E. Rodríguez Infante, Andrés Rousset Siri, Ignacio G. Perotti Pinciroli and Mrs. María Milagros Noli, of the Chair of Human Rights of the Law School of the National University of Cuyo. 8