13. On August 29 and September 6, 11, 13 and 14, 2012, respectively, a group of researchers from the Center for the Study of Sentence Execution, 8 the Brazilian Institute of Criminal Science, 9 the Asociación por los Derechos Civiles, 10 Amnesty International, 11 the Colectivo de Derechos de Infancia y Adolescencia de Argentina, 12 and the Human Rights Institute of the University of Columbia Law School, Lawyers for Human Rights together with the Center for Law and Global Justice of the University of San Francisco, 13 submitted Amicus curiae briefs in this case. 14. On September 26, 28 and 30, 2012, the representative, the State and the InterAmerican Commission submitted their respective final written arguments and observations. Together with these briefs, the Commission, the representative, and the State forwarded the clarifications and documents requested during the public hearing (supra para. 12). 15. On September 21, 2012, the State forwarded a copy “of the decision issued by Oral Juvenile Court No. 1 of the Federal Capital, in the context of the incidental plea filed for the release of César Alberto Mendoza, Claudio David Núñez and Lucas Matías Mendoza.” 16. On October 3 and 4, 2012, respectively, the representative and the Commission, submitted their observations on the decision issued by the State regarding the “incidental plea for release” (supra para. 15). 17. On October 17 and 25, 2012, the representative and the State, respectively, submitted their observations to the annexes to the final written arguments. On October 25, 2012, the Commission indicated that it had no observations to make on the annexes to the final written arguments. 18. On October 26, 2012, on the instructions of the President of the Court, the representative and the State were asked to advise the Court by November 2, 2012, at the latest, whether a remedy of complaint filed before the Federal Criminal Cassation Chamber by the Prosecutor General had been decided and, if so, to send the Court the corresponding ruling. Also, based on Article 58(b) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, on the instructions of the President of the Court, the Inter-American Commission, the representative, and the State were asked to forward, by November 2, 2012, at the latest, the legislation applicable to amparo proceedings in force at the time of the facts of this case, in the province of Mendoza and in the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires. 19. On November 2, 2012, the representative and the Inter-American Commission submitted a copy of the legislation requested by the President of the Court (supra para. 18). The same day, the State requested an extension of the time frame for presenting this 8 Cf. Amicus curiae submitted by the Group of Researchers, Center for the Study of Sentence Execution, composed of Silvana Di Vincenzo, Ariel Sebastian Garin, Nvard Nazaryan and Adalberto Polti (merits file, tome III, folios 1856 to 1888). 9 Cf. Amicus curiae submitted by the Brazilian Institute of Criminal Science, signed by Marta Cristina Cury Gimenes (merits file, tome II, folios 1788 to 1828). 10 Cf. Amicus curiae submitted by the Asociación por los Derechos Civiles, signed by José Miguel Onaidia (merits file, tome III, folios 1905 to 1963). 11 Cf. Amicus curiae presented by Amnesty International, signed by Michel Bochenek, Paola García and Marianne Mollmann (merits file, tome III, folios 1967 to 1991). 12 Cf. Amicus curiae submitted by the Colectivo de Derechos de Infancia and Adolescencia, signed by Nora Pulido (merits file, tome III, folios 1997 to 2018). 13 Cf. Amicus curiae from the Human Rights Institute of the University of Colombia Law School, signed by JoAnn Kamuf (merits file, tome III, folios 2084 to 2106). 11