State transmitted another part of the helpful documents and explanations that had been required26 (supra paras. 15 and 16). 19. Request to incorporate documents into the body of evidence. On August 2 and 16 and September 6, 2013, based on Article 57(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, the two common interveners requested the incorporation into the body of evidence of the preliminary report of the Special Rapporteur for the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism issued on July 30, 2013, in relation to the visit he made to Chile from July 17 to 30 that year, and the Concluding observations on the combined nineteenth to twenty-first periodic reports of Chile, adopted by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, at its eighty-third session held from August 12 to 30, 2013, and provided the electronic links to these documents.27 On September 6, 17 and 19, 2013, the State and the Commission forwarded their observations of this proposal of the common interveners. On October 2, 2012, CEJIL presented observations on certain “arguments” included by the State in these observations. Subsequently, on May 9, 2014, 2014, the FIDH asked the Court, based on Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, to “incorporate into the body of evidence the report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism […] concerning the Special Rapporteur’s visit to Chile [in July 2013], published on April 14, 2014.” CEJIL and Chile presented observations on this request. 20. Observations on the helpful evidence and explanations. On August 2 and 16, 2013, CEJIL and the FIDH, respectively, submitted their observations on the documentation presented by the State on June 28, 2013, in response to the request for helpful evidence (supra paras. 15, 16 and 18). On August 30, 2013, the common interveners submitted their observations on the documentation, information and explanations presented by the State on August 16, 2013. On September 1 and 6, 2013, CEJIL submitted its observations on the documentation, information and explanations presented by the State on September 6, 2013. On September 19, 2013, the Commission presented its observations on the helpful evidence provided by the State on August 16 and September 6, 2013, and on September 26, 2013 indicated that “it ha[d] no additional observations to make” concerning the documentation presented by the State on September 16 and 23, 2013. On October 2, 2013, the FIDH presented its observations on the helpful evidence presented by the State on September 16 and 23, 2013, and on October 9, 2013, advised that it had “no additional observations concerning the documents presented by the State […] on September 27, 2013.” 21. Disbursements from the Assistance Fund. Chile did not submit observations on the information on the disbursements from the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund, which had been forwarded to the State as stipulated in article 5 of the Court’s Rules for the Operation of this Fund. III – COMPETENCE 22. The Inter-American Court is competent to hear this case pursuant to Article 62(3) of the Convention, because Chile has been a State Party to the American Convention since August 21, 1990, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on that date. 26 In its brief of August 16, 2013, the State also submitted general observations on the final arguments of the FIDH. 27 In its brief, the FIDH also included general observations on the final arguments of the State. 11