5 identifying them as the original petitioners’ legal representatives: Mark Martel, Viviana Krsticevic, Ariel Dulitzky, Marcela Matamoros, Juan Méndez and José Miguel Vivanco. By note of March 12, 1996, the Commission informed the Court that Jean Joséph Exumé had also been designated as its Delegate for this case, and by note of September 16, 1996, Mr. Juan Méndez withdrew as representative of the original petitioners. 20. On February 9, 1995, the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter the "Secretariat"), on its President’s instructions, informed the Commission that, following the preliminary examination of the petition, it had been decided that it was not possible to notify the State of the application, since it did not fulfill one of the fundamental requirements, namely that some of the evidence listed in the text of the application had not been submitted to the Court. 21. Once the Commission had corrected the defects listed in the Secretariat’s letter of February 9, 1995, the President of the Court (hereinafter "the President") authorized the processing of the case. By note of March 6, 1995, the State was officially notified of the application and was granted a period of two weeks to appoint an Agent and Alternate Agent, three months to reply to the application, and 30 days to lodge preliminary objections. By another communication of the same date, the State was invited to appoint a Judge ad hoc. 22. By note of March 20, 1995, the State designated Mr. Acisclo Valladares-Molina and Mr. Vicente Arranz-Sanz as its Agent and Alternate Agent respectively, and on April 19, 1995, it appointed Mr. Edgar Enrique Larraondo-Salguero as Judge ad hoc. On August 29, 1995, the State informed the Court of the appointment of Mr. Alfonso Novales-Aguirre to replace Mr. Larraondo-Salguero as Judge ad hoc. By Order of September 11, 1995, the Court decided "to disallow the request for the replacement of Judge ad hoc Enrique Larraondo-Salguero by Mr. Alfonso Novales-Aguirre" on the basis of the following considerations: [t]hat an ad hoc judge is similar in nature to other judges on the Inter-American Court, in that he does not represent a particular government, is not its agent and sits on the Court in an individual capacity, as stipulated in Article 52 of the Convention, and in accordance with Article 55(4). An ad hoc judge is required to meet the same prerequisites as permanent judges. The provision for all permanent and ad hoc judges to sit on the Court in an individual capacity is based on and must always allow for the need to protect the independence and impartiality of an international court of justice; [t]hat the Statute of the Court establishes the same rights, duties and responsibilities for all judges, whether permanent or ad hoc (Article 10(5), in accordance with the provisions from Chapter IV of the Statute of the Court); [t]hat in this specific case, Judge ad hoc Edgar Enrique Larraondo-Salguero, after being designated and sworn in, joined the Court as judge, and even participated in the Court’s May 17, 1995 Order concerning the present case. To date the Court is unaware of any factor that might bar him from serving as ad hoc judge, and in these circumstances he cannot be replaced; and [t]hat the Court also takes note that the person proposed by the Government to sit as the ad hoc judge was also designated as an Assistant to the Government for the public hearing on preliminary objections next September 16, 1995. This fact in and of itself would constitute clear grounds for incompatibility by virtue of Article 18(c) of the Statute of the Court, which states that the exercise of the position of judge of the Court is incompatible with positions and activities "that might prevent the judges from discharging their duties, or that might affect their independence or impartiality…" 23. Pursuant to Article 31 of the Rules of Procedure, the State submitted a brief on April 3, 1995, in which it lodged preliminary objections.