36 Alleged “belated introduction” (and even material nonexistence) of the court order alleged to have caused Mr. Vargas Rohrmoser harm The State’s allegations 88. The State’s arguments for the second preliminary objection were as follows: a) the court order issued in the case of Mr. Vargas Rohrmoser was dated April 3, 2001, which meant that it was delivered subsequent to the date on which the petition with the Commission was filed; b) subsequent to April 3, 2001, no brief was ever filed with the Commission asking that it expand upon the alleged victims’ petition so as to include that court order. For that reason, the April 3, 2001 order “ought not to be litigated, inasmuch as there is no express statement to the effect” that it is included; c) if that court order is ruled out, then “Mr. Vargas Rohrmoser’s cause for complaint would disappear and he would have no standing to request this Court’s protection”; d) in the evidence the Commission supplied as annexes to the application, one “does not find either the order itself or a citation from the April 3, 2001 judgment it.” In the brief of pleadings, motions and evidence, the representatives of the alleged victims “state that the order for enforcement of judgment, dated April 3, 2001, appears in Annex 9; such is not the case;” and e) the April 3, 2001 court order, the only court ruling that went against Mr. Vargas Rohrmoser, was not introduced by the alleged victims’ representatives; instead, it was done by the Commission ex officio, which is why its exclusion is being requested. Pleadings of the Commission 89. The Inter-American Commission asked the Court to dismiss the second preliminary objection, in each and every one of the arguments presented by Costa Rica. It asserted that: a) the development of a case filed with the inter-American system does not stop when a petition is filed with the Commission. When new facts occur that materially affect the case, the Commission can and indeed must take them into account. The inclusion of supervening evidence must be considered provided the right of defense and the principle of juridical certainty are preserved; b) the State’s request that the information or supervening evidence be precluded must be rejected since the April 3, 2001 court order is a direct consequence of the February 21, 2001 order for enforcement of judgment delivered by the Criminal Court of the First Circuit of San José, which ordered