4 14. On February 15, 2001, on the instructions of the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”) and pursuant to Articles 33 and 34 of the Rules of Procedure, the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) informed the Commission that, although, in the core of the application, it had set out the names of 19 alleged victims, in the purpose and the plea of the application it had failed to include that of Luis Sauza. Consequently, the Secretariat requested the Commission to advise it, within 20 days, whether that person should be included as an alleged victim in the case, and also to forward certain attachments to the application, which were incomplete or illegible. On March 8, 2001, the Commission advised that the name of Luis Sauza had been omitted from the plea of the application owing to an “involuntary administrative error” and confirmed that he was one of the 19 alleged victims in the case. The Commission also advised that it did not have a better copies of the attachments to the application that had been presented incomplete or illegible; it indicated that those attachments appeared in the list of evidence described in paragraph 68 of the application, and it considered that the attachments should be requested from the State (infra para. 19). 15. On March 20, 2001, after the President had made a preliminary review of the application, the Secretariat notified it to the State, together with its attachments, and informed the State of the time limits for answering it and appointing its representative in the proceeding. 16. On April 11, 2001, the State appointed Luz Marina Gil García as its agent. 17. On May 25, 2001, on the instructions of the President, the Secretariat informed the State that it had the right to appoint to appoint a judge ad hoc, because, based on Article 19 of the Statute of the Court and Article 19 of its Rules of Procedure, the President had accepted the request made by Judge Carlos Vicente de Roux Rengifo, a Colombian national, to excuse himself from hearing the instant case. On June 27, 2001, the State appointed Rafael Nieto Navia as Judge ad hoc. 18. On August 10, 2001, the State submitted its answer to the application, after having requested two extensions of the time limit, which were granted by the President. 19. On March 15, 2002, on the instructions of the President, the Secretariat requested the State to forward, within 20 days, all the documentation that had been requested by the Commission in paragraph 68 of the application; this referred to the files of the investigations and the proceedings in the domestic sphere and the reports produced by the Administrative Department of Security (DAS). 20. On April 5, 2002, the State submitted a communication, requesting an extension of 10 days to present the documentation requested by the President, and described in paragraph 68 of the application. The same day, the Secretariat informed the State that, on the instructions of the President, an extension had been granted until April 16, 2002. 21. On April 16, 2002, the State sent a facsimile with the list of the documentation that it would remit, as requested on the instructions of the President (supra para. 19). On April 18, 2002, the State presented the attachments to the said communication. When acknowledging receipt and forwarding the said communication and its attachments, the Secretariat indicated which documents had