-839. On November 23, 2004, the Court issued an Order, after having received the comments filed by the Commission and by the State regarding the request for provisional measures, as well as a new brief filed by the common intervener. In such Order, the Court decided to dismiss the request for provisional measures and pointed out that the President or the Court would consider the manner in which to act, if at the moment of calling the parties to a public hearing in the instant case, the Court were informed of the possibility that the said representatives would be effectively prevented from leaving the country. 40. On January 21, 2005, the State appointed César Gonzáles-Hunt as Deputy Agent. 41. On February 16, 2005, the common intervener filed a brief by means of which he referred to the case and did attach appendixes. 42. On April 29, 2005, the Defensoría del Pueblo del Perú (Office of the Ombudsman of Peru) filed a brief and the appendixes thereto in the capacity of amicus curiae. 43. On May 4, 2005, Joseph Campos-Torres, Manuel Saavedra-Rivera, Héctor Paredes-Márquez and Cristina Rojas-Poccorpachi submitted a brief with an appendix attached, by means of which they expressed their “concern about the legal status of Attorney Ana María Zegarra-Laos and Messrs. Manuel Antonio Condori-Araujo and Guillermo Nicolás Castro-Bárcena,”, common interveners, since “there is a criminal complaint lodged against them before the Primer Juzgado Penal Especial Anticorrupción (First Special Anti-corruption Criminal Court),” and requested the Court to “reconsider and review the designation of the common interveners.” The following day, the Secretariat informed them that, pursuant to the decision of the Court of November 23, 2004, if at the moment of convening the parties to a public hearing in the instant case, the Court were informed of the possibility that the said representatives would be effectively prevented from leaving the country, then, in that case, the President or the Court would consider the manner in which to act (supra para. 39.) 44. On May 13, 2005, the State filed a communication by means of which it referred to the brief filed by the Defensoría del Pueblo del Perú (Office of the Ombudsman of Peru) in the capacity as amicus curiae (supra para 42.) 45. On May 13, 2005, Peru filed another statement by means of which it requested the Court “that it may be pleased to consider the possibility of sending a request addressed to the Primer Juzgado Penal Especial (First Special Criminal Court) of the Corte Superior de Justicia de Lima (Supreme Court of Justice of Lima) in order for this criminal court to send, by a confidential public and guaranteed means, a certified copy of the testimony [rendered by María Angélica Arce-Guerrero and Matilde Pinchi-Pinchi, both secretaries of the former Advisor to the Servicio de Inteligencia Nacional (National Intelligence Service), Vladimiro Montesinos,] since it “would be highly enlightening for the judgment of this Honorable Court to get acquainted with the full content of such testimonies and, in view of its status as jurisdictional organ, access to such information could not be denied; even though, and for obvious reasons, the handling of such information shall be kept strictly confidential reserve.” Furthermore, the State pointed out that “in case that the procedure requested was not admitted by the rules of the Honorable Court, [....] it is requested that the testimonies of the above-mentioned persons be admitted through