4 13. On September 20, 1996, the State raised seven preliminary objections and asked the Court to admit them or, alternately, to join them to the merits. Peru also requested additional time to “interpose new objections in addition to the earlier ones,” which was not granted by the Court. 14. On October 4, 1996, the State named Mr. Fernando Vidal-Ramírez as Judge ad hoc. 15. On December 12, 1996, the State submitted its answer to the application. 16. On March 18, 1997, the Court, at the behest of the Commission, asked the State for the report on the personal search of Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides conducted on February 6, 1993, and for police affidavit No. 049 DIVICOTE 3 – DINCOTE, of February 26, 1993. On May 19, 1997, the State submitted the aforementioned report, and, on April 10, 1997, asked that, in the interest of judicial economy, the affidavit that had been submitted in the Loayza-Tamayo case be incorporated into the present case. On April 14, 1997, the President issued a favorable ruling on this request. 17. In briefs dated May 19 and June 23, 1997, the State reported that Mr. Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides had requested, on October 9, 1996, a pardon from the ad hoc Commission created under Law No. 26.655. Said Commission was responsible for studying and evaluating cases and proposing that the President of the Republic, in exceptional circumstances, pardon those convicted of the crimes of terrorism or treason against the fatherland. Said Commission recommended that Cantoral-Benavides be granted this benefit. On July 15, 1997, the State reported that said pardon had been granted in Supreme Decision 078-97-JUS, of June 24, 1997. Inasmuch as Mr. Cantoral-Benavides had been released from prison, it asked the Court to dismiss the case. The State re-submitted this request on November 4, 1997 and April 24, 1998. 18. On October 16, 1997, the Commission submitted its comments on the State’s request for dismissal, and asked the Court to declare it inadmissible. 19. On June 8, 1998, the Court decided to postpone consideration of the State’s “request for dismissal” until after the public hearing on preliminary objections. 20. On June 18, 1998, the Court decided “[t]o deny the request for dismissal presented” by the State, and to continue processing the case. 21. On August 21 and November 9, 1998, the Secretariat asked the State to resubmit some of the documents it had presented as direct evidence in its answer to the application, which were found to be illegible. On December 23, 1998, the State submitted several of the documents that had been requested, some of which were still found to be illegible. On January 22, 1999, the State again presented some of the documents that had been requested. 22. On August 18, 1998, the State was asked to provide the following documentation as additional evidence, in accordance with Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure: a duly certified copy of the judicial document showing the date on which the alleged victim was officially notified of the judgment rendered on September 24, 1993, and a copy of the law that governs all procedural aspects of the extraordinary motion for review, both in the military and the regular jurisdiction.