5 21. On March 15, 2002, Peru presented its answer to the application and on April 18, 2002, it transmitted the attachments corresponding to this brief. However, some pages of appendices 8 and 9 to the answer were illegible. 22. On March 20, 2002, the Secretariat transmitted the brief on requests, arguments and evidence to the State and to the Commission and informed them that when the pending appendices (supra para. 20) had been received by the Secretariat they would be forwarded. Also, on the instructions of the President, it granted them a non-extendible period of 30 days in which to present any comments they deemed pertinent. 23. On April 18, 2002, the Secretariat transmitted the answer to the application to the Commission, the representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin, and the original claimant, informing them that, when the pending pages (supra para. 21) had been received by the Secretariat, they would be forwarded. 24. On April 22, 2002, the State transmitted its comments on the brief on requests, arguments and evidence presented by the representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin. Subsequently, on April 30, 2002, Peru submitted the original of this brief with the respective appendices. 25. On April 22, 2002, the representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin forwarded a copy of the powers of attorney for the proceeding before the Court granted by Carlos Torres Benvenuto, Javier Mujica Ruiz-Huidobro, Guillermo Álvarez Hernández, Reymert Bartra Vásquez and Sara Castro, Mr. Gamarra’s widow, to Viviana Krsticevic, Javier Mujica Petit and María Clara Galvis. 26. On April 22, 2002, the Commission forwarded its comments on the brief on requests, arguments and evidence of the representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin. The Commission also advised that Commissioner Marta Altolaguirre would also act as a delegate in the instant case, and indicated that it had received information that the State had “annulled the effects of article 5 of Decree Law No. 25792” and had complied with the provisions of the judgments delivered by the Supreme Court of Justice and the Constitutional Court of Peru, adding that “[t]his compliance [was] one of the fundamental elements of the substance of the [...] application.” 27. On May 3, 2002, CEDAL presented a communication in which it requested that the testimony of Jorge Santistevan de Noriega should be substituted by the testimonial statement of Walter Albán Peralta. It also forwarded a copy of the fifth attachment to the brief on requests, arguments and evidence, which had been requested by the Secretariat, because it was illegible (supra para. 20), and attached the original powers of attorney granted by the alleged victims to Viviana Krsticevic, Javier Mujica Petit and María Clara Galvis (supra para. 25). On May 6, 2002, on the instructions of the President, the Secretariat informed the State and the Commission that they had until May 24, 2002, to formulate any comments they deemed pertinent on the request to substitute the witness, Jorge Santistevan de Noriega. 28. On May 21, 2002, the Commission, pursuant to Article 36(4) of the Rules of Procedure, submitted a brief with arguments “on the possible preliminary objection that it could be considered that the State of Peru had filed [...] in its brief answering the application.” The same day, the representatives of the alleged victims and their