-17107. On January 20, 2006, the Inter-American Commission filed a brief to inform that the evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the case that had been requested by the President (supra para. 104) was being forwarded by the common intervener. 108. On January 25, 2006, the State filed a statement informing that the briefs and documents it had filed before December 22, 2005 contained its comments to the clarifications, explanations and documents that had been submitted by the Commission and the intervener (supra paras 72 and 74.) 109. On January 27, 2006, Peru filed a statement containing a request to convene a second public hearing, due to the existence of “new matters of fact and evidence thereof having occurred after the first hearing had been held.” The State informed that these new matters and evidence were: a) the opinion issued by Tercera Fiscalía Superior Especializada en Delitos de Corrupción de Funcionarios (Office of the Third Superior Public Prosecutor Specialized in Crimes of Corruption by Public Servants), in case No. 039-2004 pending before the Tercera Sala Penal Especial de la Corte Superior de Lima (Third Special Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima), in which case an accusation is made against an alleged victim and three representatives in this case as first-degree accomplices of the crime of peculation; b) “the refusal of [...] CEDAL to continue representing the alleged victims;”1 c) “the evidence that the alleged acknowledgment of responsibility by the State is not such, since it stems from a report prepared by the Secretaría del Consejo Nacional de Derechos Humanos del Perú (Secretariat of the National Council for Human Rights of Peru), wherein an alleged tacit acknowledgment of international responsibility made through a press release is “ratified”, but in fact, in such press release merely offered to foster a friendly settlement; in addition, the state official that made such a statement “did not act within the authority of a previous supreme resolution, nor pursuant to any other resolution;” d) the Commission and the common intervener had not duly complied with the request made by the Court to submit more precise information regarding the alleged victims, something which “is mandatory and [...] is absolutely necessary to determine the scope of the claims;” and e) “during the four months elapsed between the first hearing and the abovementioned date, a great deal of documentary evidence had been produced” and such evidence “should be dealt within an oral presentation.” 110. On January 30, 2006, the State filed two briefs, to which it attached appendixes, whereby it forwarded the evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the case that had been requested by the President (supra para. 104,) and made reference to “court records that have been archived due to discontinuance.” 111. On January 30, 2006, the common intervener filed two briefs containing the appendixes to the briefs filed on January 10 and 16, 2006 (supra para 103) and filed comments to the brief filed by the State on December 6, 2005, (supra para 90.) 112. On February 2, 2006, Francisco Ercilio Moura filed a statement requesting the Court to order in its judgment, direct payment to the Centro de Asesoría Laboral del Perú (CEDAL) (Labor Counseling Center of Peru) of the costs and expenses that 1 According to the information submitted to the Court, the Centro de Asesoría Laboral del Perú (CEDAL) (Labor Counseling Center of Peru) is the organization that rendered legal counseling to the common intervenor in the proceeding before the Court. By statement filed on December 15, 2005, CEDAL informed the Court that it would no longer provide legal counseling to the common intervenor with reference to the instant case.