4 9. On September 15, 2008, the State, the Commission and the representatives forwarded their final written pleadings. The latter, responding to a request by the President of the Tribunal, forwarded, along with the aforementioned brief, as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case, the rules and regulations governing the disciplinary procedure for ethics code infringements in force at the time of the events before the Colegio Nacional de Abogados de Panamá [Panamá National Bar Association]. Additionally, the representatives also forwarded documents evidencing expenses incurred in connection with the public hearing. 10. On the other hand, on August 7, 2008 the Tribunal received a brief from a person identifying himself under the name of Javier P. Weksler, who filed a document intending he would be considered as an amicus curiae. The Secretariat, following instructions by the President of the Tribunal, given under its regulatory authority to establish order in the proceedings and pursuant to the provision in Article 26(1) of the Rules of Procedure, requested the above mentioned person to submit the original brief within a seven day time limit, along with a copy of his identity document. In its turn, on September 16, 2008 the Inter-American Commission forwarded its comments on the above mentioned brief. Mr. Weksler did not comply by forwarding the requested information within the time limit given him, for which reason the Inter-American Court does not admit such appearance. Finally, on December 19, 2008 and on January 5, 2009, the Court received two amicus curiae briefs: the first one of them from Messrs. Pedro Nikken and Carlos Ayala Corao, and from Mrs. Mariella Villegas Zalazar, and the second one of them had been forwarded by Mr. Damián Loreti and by Mrs. Paola García Rey and by Mrs. Andrea Pochak from the Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales [Legal and Social Studies Center]. The original briefs were received on January 8 and 13, 2009. III PRELIMINARY OBJECTION 11. In its brief answering the application, the State made a preliminary objection on the grounds of “the partial lack of competent jurisdiction on the subject matter,” in connection with a reparation measure requested by the Commission in its application and three “preliminary observations” on the standing of the representatives to move for two reparation measures and to put forward, in their pleadings and motions brief, claims differing from those in the application by the Commission. 12. Panamá objected to the reparation measure requested by the Commission about the State adapting its criminal legal system pursuant to Article 13 of the American Convention. It asserted that the “demand for a State to review its domestic legislation cannot be enforced in adjudication proceedings, which must deal only with human rights violations perpetrated against certain persons” and that “the aforementioned demand may be taken into consideration by the Court only when exercising its advisory function, but never when it is exercising its adjudicatory Rampsey, Deputy Agent, Lorena Nisla Aparicio, Deputy Representative of the Republic of Panamá to the Organization of American States, Vladimir Franco, Director for Legal Matters with the Foreign Affairs Ministry and Sophia Astrid Lee, Legal Counsel.