4 17. On November 14, 2003, the Wisconsin Coordinating Council on Nicaragua, of Wisconsin (United States), submitted an amicus curiae brief to the Court. 18. On December 17, 2003, the State submitted a brief filing preliminary objections, answering the application and with comments on the brief with requests and arguments with documentary evidence attached, and offered expert evidence 19. On February 3, 2004, the representatives presented their written arguments on the preliminary objections filed by the State. 20. On February 11, 2004, the Commission forwarded its written arguments on the preliminary objections filed by the State. 21. On February 27, 2004, the State remitted a brief with its considerations on the comments that the representatives and the Commission had made on the preliminary objections, and attached various documents. 22. On May 12, 2004, on the instructions of the President, the Secretariat informed the State that it had decided not to accept the said brief, because it constituted a procedural measure that was not envisaged in the Court’s Rules of Procedure, and that, when delivering the corresponding judgment, the Court would decide on the admissibility of incorporating as supervening documentary evidence the three documents submitted by the State as attachments to the brief of February 27, 2004. In addition, on the instructions of the President, the Secretariat requested the State to forward the final official list of candidates for mayors, deputy mayors and councilors presented by the YATAMA political party in the RAAN and by the Coastal People Party Alliance (PPC) and YATAMA in the RAAS for the municipal elections of November 2000. 23. On August 4, 2004, the State presented an official communication from the Director General for Electoral Logistics and Organization of the Supreme Electoral Council advising that “the YATAMA political organization did not even attend the official act when the candidates were presented, and the Supreme Electoral Council has not made any assessment of whether it complies with the requirements of the Electoral Law, since, previously, this Organization had not complied with the requirements to present the 3% supporting signatures, and to have been established six months before the elections, in accordance with the law.” The State’s agent indicated that, in this “way, the request of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in its communication of May 12, 2004, had been complied with” (supra para. 22). 24. On December 9, 2004, on the instructions of all the judges of the Court, the Secretariat requested the State to collaborate by forwarding the said final list of candidates (supra paras. 22 and 23), irrespective of the fact that the YATAMA party not had taken part in the said election because it was considered that it had not complied with the legal requirements and some of the proposed candidates had not been registered. 25. On January 14 and 17, 2005, on the instructions of the President, the Secretariat requested the representatives and the State, respectively, to forward, by January 24, 2005, at the latest, any comments they deemed pertinent concerning the Commission’s request in the application that the Court incorporate the expert evidence from the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community case, and “order that the