8 submitted to the Inter-American Court. 31. On April 21, 2003, having been granted a fifteen-day extension, the petitioners’ representatives requested the Commission to submit the case to the Court. 32. On June 5 and July 3, 2003, having been granted an extension, the State submitted its brief on the measures adopted to comply with the recommendations made in Report No. 30/03 on the merits of the case. The State indicated that “it had not failed to meet the obligation that the children should have a nationality, because, if they had not been granted Dominican nationality, they would be Haitian.” It stated that the petitioners “had not filed [...] their petition before the competent court ratione materiae, that [...] this was the court of first instance [...], which could have heard an ‘action to claim civil status’ and which also hears matters relating to nationality [...].” The State also indicated that the children had not had recourse “to the Central Electoral Board, which is the supreme body responsible for the Civil Status Registrars.” The State alleged that “it had not violated the rights contained in Articles 1, 2, 3, 8, 19, 20, 24 and 25 of the American Convention [… or] the right to education embodied in Article XII of the American Declaration […].” Lastly, with regard to the current requirements for making a late declaration, it advised that “the passport c[ould] be an identity document,” and attached the draft law modifying Act No. 659, and facilitating the Registry Office procedure. IV PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COURT 33. On July 11, 2003, the Commission submitted the application to the Court. 34. The Commission appointed Susana Villarán and Santiago Cantón as its delegates and Bertha Santhoscoy and Ariel Dulitzky as its legal advisers.4 It also indicated the names of the original petitioners: Viviana Krsticevic and Roxanna Altholz, representing CEJIL, and Laurel Fletcher, representing the International Human Rights Law Clinic. 35. On August 12, 2003, after the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”) had made a preliminary review of the application, the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) notified it to the State, with its attachments, and informed the State of the time limits for answering it and appointing its representatives in the proceeding. On the President’s instructions, the Secretariat also advised the State of its right to designate a judge ad hoc. 36. On August 11, 2003, as established in Article 35(1)(d) and (e) of the Rules of Procedure, the Secretariat notified the application to MUDHA, CEJIL and the International Human Rights Law Clinic, as representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin5 (hereinafter “the representatives”), and informed them of the time limit for submitting their brief with requests, arguments and evidence (hereinafter “brief with requests and arguments”). 4 While this case was being processed, the Commission made changes in those it had designated to represent them before the Court. 5 While this case was being processed, the representatives made changes in those it had designated to represent them before the Court.