18 111. On September 8, 2006 the common intervener presented a brief and its appendix, through which it presented “the […] article published by the newspaper Correo on September 6, 2006 in relation to the prosecution of Alberto Fujimori Fujimori for some facts related to the present case.” Likewise, she made some corrections to information that was set forth in her brief of final arguments (supra para. 106) and stated that she was forwarding documentation regarding “receipts [… of] expenses.” This last documentation was presented on October 4, 2006. 112. On September 14, 2006 the State presented a brief and its appendixes, through which it forwarded “supervening evidence, under the protection of that stated in Article 44º, subparagraph 3, of the Rules of Procedure of the Court,” in relation to “[the] ruling of last August 29[, in which the] preliminary proceedings have been started with an arrest warrant against former president Alberto Fujimori Fujimori, for the facts occurred between May 6 through 9, 2991 in the Penitentiary ‘Miguel Castro Castro’.” On September 20, 2006 Peru presented the appendixes to said brief. 113. On September 22, 2006 the Commission presented a brief, through which it forwarded its observations to the evidence presented by the State as an appendix to its final written arguments (supra para. 105) and to the one presented on August 25, 2006 as supervening evidence (supra paras. 108 and 109). Likewise, it referred to the brief presented by the common intervener on August 3, 2006 on the clarification and observations related to the determination of the alleged victims (supra paras. 104 and 107). 114. On September 26, 2006 the Secretariat, following the President’s instructions, granted time until October 6, 2006 for the common intervener and the Commission to present the observations considered appropriate to the mentioned “supervening evidence” presented by the State on September 14, 2006 (supra para. 112). 115. On September 29, 2006 the common intervener presented a brief and its appendixes, in which she forwarded her observations to the brief and evidence presented by the State on September 14, 2006 (supra paras. 112 and 114). 116. On October 5, 2006 the Commission presented a brief, through which it forwarded its observations to the brief and evidence presented by Peru on September 14, 2006 (supra paras. 112 and 114). 117. On October 20, 2006 the Commission presented a communication, with which it enclosed appendixes. In its communication the Commission pointed out that it was forwarding a “copy of the communication [of] October 16, 2006, through which Messrs. Hubert Arce Carpio and Francisco Alania Osorio asked the Commission […] to assume the defense of its interests, [in relation to this] case […,] and Mrs. Doris Quispe La Rosa […] ratif[ied] her will in this sense.” As appendixes to said communication the Commission also enclosed the written statement of the aforementioned alleged victims. 118. On October 24, 2006 the common intervener forwarded a brief, through which she referred to the communication presented by the Inter-American Commission on October 20, 2006 and its appendixes (supra para. 117), and stated that she “[o]bjects […] the presentation of testimonies at this moment of the process and considers[…] that in virtue of Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure they are inadmissible.”