4 In a separate note of the same date Honduras asked the Commission to correct the Report of Merits N° 18/03 in consideration of the arguments made. IV PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COURT 12. On July 7, 2003 the Inter-American Commission submitted the application to the Court, and it included documentary evidence, testimonial evidence, and expert assessments. The Commission appointed Julio Prado Vallejo and Santiago Canton as delegates and Isabel Madariaga, Martha Braga, and Ariel Dulitzky as legal advisors.1 13. On August 1, 2003 the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”), prior preliminary examination of the application by the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”), notified it to the State and informed the latter of the terms for its reply and appointment of their representation in the process. On that same day the Secretariat, following the President’s instructions, informed the State of its right to appoint a judge ad hoc to participate in the consideration of the case. 14. On August 4, 2003, according to that established in Article 35(1)(d) and 35(1)(e) of the Rules of Procedure, the Secretariat notified the OFRANEH, in its condition of representative of the alleged victim2 (hereinafter “the representatives”) of the application and informed it of the time limit to present the brief of pleadings, motions, and evidence (hereinafter “brief of pleadings and motions”). 15. On September 30, 2003 the State appointed Mr. Jacobo Cáliz Hernández as Agent and Mrs. Argentina Wellerman Ugarte as Deputy Agent.3 On December 4, 2003 the State informed that Mr. Álvaro Agüero Lacayo, Ambassador of Honduras before the Government of Costa Rica, was appointed as Agent in substitution of Mr. Jacobo Cálix Hernández. 16. On November 20, 2003 the OFRANEH and the Center for Justice and International Law (hereinafter “CEJIL”), in their condition of representatives of the alleged victim, forwarded their brief of pleadings and motions, in which they enclosed documentary evidence and they offered testimonial evidence and expert assessments. The representatives claimed that, besides the rights indicated by the Inter-American Commission in the application (supra para. 2), the State also violated the rights enshrined in Articles 13 (Freedom of Thought and Expression), 16 (Freedom of Association), and 17 (Rights of the Family) of the Convention, in detriment of the alleged victim, and Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) of the same instrument, in detriment of the alleged victim’s next of kin. 17. On December 15, 2003 the State presented its response to the petition and observations to the brief of pleadings and motions (hereinafter “brief of response to the petition”), and it enclosed documentary evidence and offered testimonial evidence and expert assessments. 1 During the processing of the case the Commission made changes in the appointment of its representatives before the Court. 2 During the processing of the case the representatives made changes in the appointment of its representatives before the Court. 3 During the processing of the case the State made changes in the appointment of its representatives before the Court.