17 their clarifications or observations with regard to several issues referring to the determination of the alleged victims of the case. 102. On August 3, 2006 the Commission presented a brief, through which it forwarded its response to the clarifications or observations in relation to the matter of the determination of the alleged victims of the case (supra para. 101). 103. On August 3, 2006 the Commission presented its final written arguments on the merits and the possible reparations and costs. As an “appendix” to its brief of final arguments the Commission forwarded a brief of the “Grupo Canto Grande 92”, indicating that it was a brief “received by the Commission from the group of [alleged] victims represented by Mrs. Sabina Astete.” On August 11, 2006 it presented the appendixes to the mentioned brief of Mrs. Sabina Astete. 104. On August 3, 2006 the common intervener presented its response to the clarifications or observations in relation to the matters regarding the determination of the alleged victims of the case (supra para. 101). On August 15, 2006 it presented appendixes 2, 3, and 4 of the mentioned brief. 105. On August 9, 2006 the State presented its final written briefs and its response to the request for evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case requested in the public hearing (supra paras. 93 and 101). On August 10, 2006 the State presented the appendixes to said briefs. 106. On August 18, 2006 the common intervener presented its final written arguments. Likewise, she enclosed the documents included in 6 “Appendixes”. 107. On August 23, 2006 the Secretariat of the Court, following the President’s instructions, granted time until September 23, 2006 so that the parties could forward the observations considered convenient to the mentioned briefs through which the Commission and the common intervener presented their response to the clarifications or observations with regard to the matters referent to the determination of the alleged victims, and the State’s response to the Court’s request for evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case (supra paras. 102, 104, and 105). 108. On August 25, 2006 the State presented “supervening evidence[, … in relation to] the criminal accusation made by the Fifth Supraprovincial Criminal Prosecutors’ Office of Lima […] against the former president Alberto Fujimori Fujimori […]” in relation to the present case. 109. On August 28, 2006 the Secretariat, following the President’s instructions, granted time until September 23, 2006 for the Commission and the common intervener to present the corresponding observations to the brief presented by the State on August 25, 2006 (supra para. 108). 110. On August 31, 2006 the common intervener presented a brief and its appendixes, through which it forwarded its observations to the clarification regarding the determination of the alleged victims presented by the Commission on August 3, 2006 (supra paras. 102 and 107). On that same date, the common intervener presented a brief and its appendixes, through which she forwarded her observations to the “supervening evidence” presented by the State through its brief of August 25, 2006 (supra paras. 108 and 109). The appendixes to these last observations were presented on September 19, 2006.