7 35. On January 22, 1998, the Commission submitted a copy of the documentation that FASIC had sent to it concerning that foundation’s legal capacity. 36. In a brief of March 17, 1998, the State asserted that the documents referred to in the preceding paragraph merely confirmed its doubts as to the legal status of the claimant foundation. It also “challenged” one of the powers of attorney. 37. In its brief of preliminary objections and in its answer to the application, the State had requested that the Commission show all the proceedings in this case. On March 19, 1998, the Secretariat informed the State that, as per the latter’s request, the Commission had duly supplied the pertinent parts of its case file and that those papers were in the Court’s possession. 38. That same day, acting on the President’s instructions, the Secretariat requested from the State an authenticated copy of the laws and regulations cited in the proceedings conducted in the Peruvian courts against the alleged victims in this case, and for the complete court records of those legal proceedings. 39. On April 14, 1998, the State informed the Court that the laws the latter had requested had been submitted as evidence in the Loayza Tamayo Case. It therefore asked that the Court kindly indicate which records of the court proceedings conducted in the cases of the alleged victims would be needed, since the files “contain an enormous number of documents concerning persons other than those named in this application.” 40. On April 27, 1998, the Commission reiterated its request for submission of the “laws and other regulatory decrees relevant to the proceedings carried out by the Peruvian courts against Jaime Francisco Castillo Petruzzi et al., and all relevant parts of the court records in these cases.” The Commission objected to the use of the documents submitted in the Loayza Tamayo case containing the laws and regulations cited in that case, arguing that they were completely different case files. On July 7, 1998, the Secretariat, on instructions from the Court, asked that the State submit the pertinent parts of the court record of the proceedings in Peru against Jaime Francisco Castillo Petruzzi et al. and informed both parties that the laws and decrees submitted for the Loayza Tamayo Case would be added to the Court’s file on this case.1 1. Those laws and decrees are as follows: Code of Criminal Procedure, enacted into law on November 22, 1939; Statute of Military Justice, February 4, 1986; Code of Military Justice, Decree Law No. 23,214, promulgated on February 4, 1986; Statute of the Court of Constitutional Guarantees, May 19, 1982; the 1979 Constitution, July 12, 1979; the 1993 Constitution, December 29, 1993; Decree-Law No. 23,506 (Habeas Corpus and Amparo Act), promulgated on December 7, 1982; Decree-Law No. 24,150 (rules that must be observed in states of emergency in which the armed forces assume control over internal order, in all or part of the national territory), promulgated on June 8, 1985; Decree-Law No. 25,418 (Statute of the National Emergency and Reconstruction Government, general law on the state of emergency of April 5, 1992), promulgated on April 7, 1992; Decree-Law No. 25,499 (establishing the terms for granting reduced sentences, immunity, pardon or lighter sentences to those who have committed crimes of terrorism), promulgated on May 17, 1992; Decree-Law No. 25,708 (rules governing proceedings in trials for treason: it states that the summary proceeding called for under the Code of Military Justice will apply), promulgated on September 10, 1992; Decree-Law No. 25,728 (authorizing courts to convict in absentia when the charges are terrorism and treason), promulgated on September 19, 1992; Decree-Law No. 25,744 (rules and procedure that will be followed during the police investigation, the judicial inquiry and trial, and sentencing guidelines for the crimes of treason classified in Decree-Law No. 25,659), promulgated on September 28, 1992; Decree-Law No. 26,248 (amending Decree-Law No. 25,659, as regards the admissibility of writs of habeas corpus when the crimes involved are terrorism or