-7- 32. On May 5, 2004, the Commission filed its written arguments regarding the preliminary comments filed by the State. 33. On May 12, 2004, the common intervener filed the written comments on the brief of preliminary comments filed by the State and filed appendixes therewith. Likewise, the common intervener requested to be granted “a reasonable time” to “refer to the allegations on the merits put forth by the defendant State in its answer to the application.” 34. On July 5, 2004, the State filed “a brief containing a written answer to the allegations regarding the preliminary comments that had been previously filed by the Commission and by the common intervener,” to which it attached appendixes. 35. On July 23 and 26, 2004, respectively, the Secretariat served notice on the parties in order to notify them that both the request made by the common intervener in his brief of May 12, 2004 (supra para. 33) as well as the brief and appendixes filed by the State on July 5, 2004 (supra para. 34) had been submitted to the President of the Court for consideration, and the President had decided as follows: not to grant the common intervener a time period to make reference to the allegations on the merits made by the State in its answer to the application and in the comments to the brief of requests and arguments; and further, not to accept the said brief filed by the State, due to the fact that these are written procedural steps not contemplated in the Rules of Procedure of the Court, and also considering that both parties would have the opportunity to refer to the allegations made by the other parties at the time of making their final allegations in the public hearing to be convened in due time, as well as at the time of filing their final written arguments; and further decided that, in due time, upon entering the pertinent judgment, the Court would rule about the appropriateness of incorporating as documentary evidence the documents submitted by the State in the appendixes to the said brief. 36. On July 7, 2004, Joseph Campos-Torres, Manuel Francisco Saavedra-Rivera and Cristina Rojas-Poccorpachi, representatives of the alleged victims that do not form part of the common intervener, presented a brief with appendixes attached thereto, by means of which they requested the Court to reconsider the ruling that was notified by a communication of April 27, 2004 (supra para. 34,) regarding the designation of a common intervener for the representatives of the alleged victims. 37. On August 3, 2004, the Secretariat, following instructions of the Court en banc, sent a note to Messrs. Campos-Torres and Saavedra-Rivera and to Mrs. RojasPoccorpachi regarding the requests contained in their brief of July 7, 2004, to communicate the said representatives that the Inter-American Court confirmed the terms stated in the notice of April 27, 2004 (supra para. 31,) with reference to the designation of the common intervener for the representatives in the instant case. 38. On October 14, 2004, the common intervener filed a brief with appendixes attached requesting the adoption of any “urgent protective provisional measures that may be in order to safeguard the full freedom and physical integrity” of Alejandro Hinostroza-Rimari (alleged victim,) Manuel Antonio Condori-Araujo (alleged victim,) Ana María Zegarra-Laos and Guillermo Nicolás Castro-Bárcena (the three latter being the representatives of the alleged victims that form part of the group that includes the common intervener.)