14 82. On June 16, 2006 the common intervener forwarded copy of the written statements of Mrs. Edith Adriana Tinta Junco de Feria (supra para. 65) and Rubeth Feria Tinta. Regarding the statement of the latter she stated that “[d]espite the fact that [said a]ffidavit was not offered […], it became necessary because [the common intervener,] found it difficult to ask her […] mother the questions,” reason why she asked the Tribunal to accept said statement “as a complement” to the statement of Mrs. Edith Tinta. The Secretariat informed the common intervener that said request would be forwarded to the Court for the corresponding effects. 83. On June 17, 2006 the common intervener forwarded copy of the statement offered by the witness Raúl Basilio Gil Orihuela (supra para. 65). Likewise, she requested an extension to present the testimonies of Messrs. Rosario Falconí, Jesús Angel Julcarima, Gustavo Chávez Hun, and Mercedes Villaverde through statement offered before notary public, in response to that requested in the Ruling issued by the President on May 24, 2006 (supra para. 65). The Secretariat, following the President’s instructions, asked the representative to forward said statements as soon as possible. 84. On June 19, 2006 the expert witness Christopher Birkbeck forwarded his written statement (supra para. 65). 85. On June 20, 2006 the Commission presented a brief, through which it desisted from presenting the written statement of Mr. Wilfredo Pedraza (supra paras. 65 and 76), since he informed the Commission that “despite the extension granted by the […] Court […], due to time limitations he would not be able to comply with that requested.” On that same day, the Commission presented a brief through which it indicated that “it did not have observations to present to the statements of Messrs. Michael Stephen Bronstein [supra para. 73], Osilia Ernestina Cruzatt widow of Juárez [supra para. 77], Eva Sofía C[h]allco Hurtado, Luz Liliana Peralta Saldarriaga, Nieves Miriam Rodríguez Peralta, Madelein Escolástica Valle Rivera, Alfredo Poccorpachi Vallejos, and César Mamaní Valverde” (supra para. 79). Additionally, in said brief it presented observations to the statement offered by Mr. Luis F. Jiménez (supra para. 73) and, inter alia, it requested that the Court “add to the body of evidence only those elements of the statement that compl[ied] with the objective mentioned by the Tribunal.” 86. On June 21, 2006 the common intervener presented a brief, through which she forwarded copy of the expert reports of Mrs. Ana Deutsch and Mr. José Quiroga (supra para. 65). 87. On June 24, 2006 the common intervener forwarded a complete copy of the written statement of the witness Jesús Ángel Julcarima Antonio (supra para. 65). 88. On June 25, 2006 the common intervener presented a brief, in which she formulated an “objection to the participation of Mr. Diego García Sayán as a judge in the present case,” since she considered that he would have a restraint to do so. The intervener stated, inter alia, that Judge García-Sayán had served as Secretary of Justice and Foreign Affairs of Peru, and as such was “responsible as an official of the policies and decisions of the Peruvian State in relation to the investigation or lack of investigation of the facts.” 89. On June 25, 2006 Peru presented a brief, through which it stated its “objection” to the claim of the common intervener (supra para. 88).