6 23. On October 11, 2004, both the State and the Commission submitted their final written arguments on preliminary objections, possible merits, reparations and costs. 24. On January 14, 2005, the State submitted a copy “of the recent modification of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Suriname,” with regard to the extension of the statute of limitation for certain defined crimes. 25. On February 17, 2005, following the President’s instructions and pursuant to Article 45 of the Rules of Procedure, the parties were requested to submit additional information to the Court no later than March 17, 2005. 26. On March 15, 2005, the representatives submitted documentation pursuant to Article 45 of the Rules of Procedure. Furthermore, the representatives requested an extension of 20 days in order to supplement the information presented. Following the instructions of the President, an extension was granted until April 6, 2005. 27. On March 17, 2005, Suriname submitted information pursuant to Article 45 of the Rules of Procedure. On that same day, the Commission also responded to the President’s aforementioned request (supra paragraph 25). In its communication, the Commission indicated, inter alia, that it had received “information concerning the identification of four additional victims of the attack on Moiwana Village.” 28. On April 14, 2005, Mr. F. Kruisland and the parties to the instant case were notified of the Order issued by the Court on March 15, 2005, by which Mr. Kruisland was ordered to “demit the post of ad hoc judge in the Case of Moiwana Village v. Suriname,” owing to “his [previous] participation in legal proceedings that have a direct connection with significant facts and issues before the Court in the instant case.” In said Order, the Court observed that its decision to dismiss Mr. Kruisland from the present case “[did] not signify that he in fact lacks independence or impartiality regarding the matters in question, nor [did] it express any form of reprimand or criticism on the part of the Tribunal.” 29. On April 15, 2005, Mr. Kruisland “demit[ted] as ad hoc judge of the Court [in the instant case], effective immediately.” 30. On April 25, 2005, the representatives submitted additional documentation in response to the President’s request (supra paragraph 25) pursuant to Article 45 of the Rules of Procedure. Said information contained the names of seven individuals who previously had not been designated alleged victims in the present case. 31. On May 12, 2005, the representatives advised, inter alia, that they were “unable to obtain any further documentation concerning [alleged] victims beyond that which has already been transmitted previously to the Court.” 32. On May 13, 2005, following the President’s instructions, the Secretariat invited the parties of the case to submit observations on the information and documentation presented before the Court in response to the President’s request of February 17, 2005, made pursuant to Article 45 of the Rules of Procedure. The Secretariat indicated that, if the parties chose to submit said observations, they were to be received by May 20, 2005.