8 case, the records of the latest proceedings conducted in the case instituted against Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas. 39. On August 19, 2005, the State appointed Jorge Santistevan de Noriega as Judge ad hoc for the instant case. 40. On September 6, 2005, the State forwarded the evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the case that had been requested by the President on July 13, 2005 (supra para. 37). 41. On September 12, 2005, the representatives forwarded, as the evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the case requested by the President on July 13, 2005 (supra para. 37), a copy of the records of the latest proceedings conducted in the case against Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas. 42. On October 19, 2005, the State forwarded, as the evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the case requested by the President on July 13, 2005 (supra para. 37), documentary evidence related to the state of the criminal proceedings conducted against Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas (infra para. 89). 43. On October 20, 2005, the Secretariat, on instructions from the President, requested the representatives, as evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the case, a copy of conclusive identity documents of Napoleón García-Tuesta, Julio Ramírez-Rojas, Santa Ramírez-Rojas, Obdulia Ramírez-Rojas, Marcelina Ramírez-Rojas, and Adela Ramírez-Rojas, and the death certificates of Daniel Ramírez and María Alejandra Rojas. That same day, the Commission was requested a copy of a conclusive identity document of Pompeya Ramírez-Rojas. 44. On November 11 and 16, 2005, the representatives forwarded the evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the case requested by the President on October 20, 2005 and attached the identity document of Pompeya Ramírez-Rojas, which had been requested to the Commission (infra para. 89). V PRELIMINARY OBJECTION Arguments of the State 45. During the first public hearing held in the instant case, the State argued that, in relation to the new proceedings instituted against the alleged victims, domestic remedies had not been exhausted. In its closing written arguments, the State asserted that it was not admissible that the Commission “fil[ed] with the Court a case that w[as] pending final resolution” in the domestic courts. Arguments of the Commission