-13- 73. On October 24, 2005, the State filed its final written arguments regarding the preliminary objections and possibly on the merits of the case, reparations and costs, and also the information that the Court had requested after the final oral arguments at the public hearing and by note of October 14, 2005 (supra para 69,) and attached other documents as appendixes. The said appendixes were filed on October 31, 2005. 74. On October 24, 2005, the Commission filed its final written arguments regarding the preliminary comments and possibly on the merits of the case, reparations and costs, and also the information that the Court had requested after the final oral arguments at the public hearing and by note of October 14, 2005 (supra para 69.) The Commission stated that it was forwarding as appendixes the briefs submitted before the Commission by the alleged victims and the representatives, which were forwarded to the Court on a later date. 75. On November 3, 2005, the Commission sent a brief that had been submitted to it by Cristina Rojas-Poccorpachi together with its appendixes, and also submitted a statement filed before the Commission by Manuel Saavedra-Rivera, Héctor ParedesMárquez and Carlos Cueva-Rojas (with no signatures,) and a note addressed to those persons by the Commission in which they were requested to submit the appendixes to such communications. On November 23, 2005, Manuel SaavedraRivera, Héctor Paredes-Márquez and Carlos Cueva-Rojas filed with this Court a note requesting the “correction” of certain mistakes contained in the statement they filed before the Commission. 76. On November 9, 2005, the Commission forwarded the original brief dated October 24, 2005, filed with such organ by Manuel Saavedra-Rivera, Héctor ParedesMárquez and Carlos Cueva-Rojas, along with its appendixes (supra, para. 75). 77. On November 10, 2005, the Secretariat, following the instructions of the President, sent notice to the State requesting the submission, not later than November 29, 2005, of a detailed explanation of the scope of the acknowledgment of international responsibility made while the case was being processed before the Court, clearly stating the names of the alleged victims, former ESMLL workers, in regards to whom the State acknowledged its international responsibility; and further requested the State to inform whether the said acknowledgement of responsibility extended to all the violations to the American Convention alleged by the InterAmerican Commission and by the common intervener for the representatives of the alleged victims. Likewise, following instructions of the President, the State was requested to submit on or before November 29, 2005, all the documents evidencing the information included in a schedule identified as “Persons that must be excluded from the application,” which was submitted as appendix 23 to the brief of preliminary objections, answer to the application and comments to the brief of requests and arguments. 78. On November 17, 2005, the Commission sent a statement dated October 24, 2005 and appendixes thereto, that had been filed with the Commission by a group of alleged victims. 79. On November 17, 2005, the Commission filed “the original of a statement dated October 24, 2005, that had been received by the Secretariat [of the