6 reported that “the State had complied with operative paragraphs [one, two and three] of the Inter-American Court’s September 7 [2001] order.” The representatives went on to say, however, that on August 27, 2002, Mr. Przedborski’s attorneys had asked the Costa Rican court to enforce the November 12, 1999 judgment. Given that fact, the attorneys representing Mr. Mauricio Herrera Ulloa and “La Nación” filed a “motion of improper procedure” so that the court hearing the case would comply with the Inter-American Commission’s recommendation. The court never ruled on the motion. 25. On March 10, 2003, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Costa Rica forwarded to the Court a letter rogatory from the Criminal Trial Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José, dated March 6, 2003, in which it reported that it had denied the improper procedure motion filed by Mr. Fernando Guier Esquivel to have that San José court’s October 24, 2002 order for enforcement of judgment vacated. The motion was denied on the grounds that it was not a procedural means to challenge decisions such as the one being appealed. 26. The application that the Inter-American Commission filed with the Court in the present case concerns the facts that prompted this Court to order provisional measures on behalf of Mr. Mauricio Herrera Ulloa. Given the nature of this matter, the Court finds that the corresponding analysis should be set aside until the decision on the merits of the case presented. V PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COURT 27. The Commission filed the application with the Court on January 28, 2003 (supra para. 1). 28. In keeping with articles 22 and 33 of the Rules of Court, the Commission designated Mr. Robert Goldman and Mr. Santiago A. Canton as delegates in this case, and Ariel Dulitzky, Martha Braga, Débora Benchoam and Norma Colledani as advisors. As prescribed by Article 33 of the Rules of Court, the Commission reported the names of the original petitioners and gave a single address for them. 29. Once the President of the Court had made a preliminary review of the application, on February 14, 2003 the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) notified the respondent State of the application and its annexes, advised it of the deadlines for answering the application, and that it was to appoint its agents in the case. That same day, by instruction of the President and in keeping with Article 18 of the Rules of Court and Article 10(3) of the Statute of the Court, the Secretariat advised the State of its right to appoint a Judge ad hoc to participate in the deliberations on the present case. That same day, February 14, 2003, in accordance with Article 35(1)e) of the Rules of Court, the alleged victims –Mssrs. Mauricio Herrera Ulloa and Fernán Vargas Rohrmoser- were also notified of the application. On February 17, 2003, pursuant to Article 35(1)(d) and e) and then Article 35(4) of the Rules of Court, 6 the representatives of the alleged victims, Mssrs. Carlos Ayala Corao, Pedro Nikken and Fernando Guier, were notified of the application, so that within 30 days’ time, they might submit to the Court their pleadings, motions and evidence. 6 Rules of Procedure approved by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights at its XLIX regular session, by a November 24, 2000 order. These Rules took effect on June 1, 2001. This article, among others, was amended by the Court at its LXI regular session, through a November 25, 2003 order. The amendment entered into force on January 1, 2004.