10 the document at the appropriate time and, despite this, it did not submit any objection or observation on the said list. The common intervenors’ arguments 57. The common intervenors requested the Court to reject the objection and argued that: (a) The State is attempting to disregard the usual practice in the processing of individual petitions for the violation of rights embodied in the Convention, and (b) What the State refers to as “adhesion” corresponds to the co-petitioner mechanism; this relates to third parties who, after the petition has been lodged before the Commission, express their desire to be considered petitioners in the case also. This frequent practice of admitting third parties who have not been named as petitioners is admissible provided that, as in this case, the original petitioner in the case does not oppose the admission of the co-petitioner. The Court’s findings 58. The State acknowledged, as regards the exhaustion of domestic remedies, that the “the period referred to in Article 32 of the […] Rules of Procedure [of the Commission should be] calculated as of January 12, 1998, the date of publication of the judgment delivered by the Constitutional Court in File No. 338-1996-AA/TC.” In point of fact, “Adolfo Fernández Saré and another [126] employees dismissed from the Congress of the Republic of Peru” lodged their petition before the Commission on March 26, 1998, and, subsequently, other petitions or requests to adhere to the petitions were presented1 (supra paras. 5 to 12). 59. From the case file before the Commission, particularly from the contents of its Admissibility Report No. 52/00 of June 15, 2000 (supra para. 13), it is clear that “since the petitions in both case 11,830 and case 12,038 specifically name some individuals adding ‘and others’ and that, during the processing of the case, the [Commission] received different lists of names of the alleged victims from the petitioners, as well as adhesion requests from other individuals who asked to be incorporated as alleged victims, [the Commission] presumed that all those included in the Constitutional Court’s judgment of November 24, 1997, were alleged victims.” In other words, at that procedural opportunity, the Commission used “all those included” in the Constitutional Court’s judgment as a basis for determining the alleged victims (infra para. 89(21) and 89(24)). In addition, in accordance with the right of defense and the adversarial principle, the Commission forwarded this information to the State, which never submitted any objection or observation to the 1 In July 1998, another petition was submitted (12,038) by at least 21 individuals. On February 4, 1999, two people asked to be considered “adherents” to the petition submitted by Mr. Fernández Saré. In April 1999, Mr. Fernández Saré indicated that there were 200 petitioners. Subsequently, on December 9, 1999, the Lima Lawyers’ Professional Association submitted several lists which included 52 individuals who appear in the first petition lodged by Mr. Fernández Saré; 16 individuals who, according to the Lawyers’ Professional Association, had not exhausted domestic remedies; 14 individuals who are included in petition 11,830; 13 individuals who are included in petition 12,038; two people who adhered to petition 12,038; and three people who adhered to petition 12,038 but who, according to the Lawyers’ Professional Association, had also not exhausted domestic remedies.