7 there were no disputed points concerning the merits of the case that [would] warrant this procedure.” 28. On December 9, 2004, the State forwarded a “[f]riendly settlement agreement” and an appendix, all the pages of which had been signed by Gonzalo José Salas Lozada, Agent (supra para. 18), and by Pablo Rojas Rojas, President of COMISEDH; Angélica Castañeda Flores, representative of COMISEDH, and María Clara Galvis, representative of CEJIL. The documents that the State sent to the Court were: a 13-folio document entitled “PEDRO CASE OF HUILCA TECSE[,] AGREEMENT CONCERNING REPARATIONS” and a 25-folio document entitled “THE EXTRAJUDICIAL EXECUTION OF PEDRO HUILCA TECSE WAS A STATE CRIME.” At the same time, the State requested the Court to “admit the signed friendly settlement agreement and its appendix, take into consideration the contents, and proceed to deliver JUDGMENT in the instant case.” 29. On December 11, 2004, the representatives forwarded “the agreement on reparations signed between the Peruvian State and the organizations representing the [alleged] victim [and his next of kin] in the case on December 6, 2004”. It requested endorsement of the agreement. 30. On December 20, 2004, the State presented a brief with its appendixes, in which it advised that, by Supreme Resolution No. 336-2004-RE published on December 17, 2004 it had appointed María de Lourdes Zamudio Salinas as Agent in the case, in substitution of Gonzalo José Salas Lozada. While “reiterating its undertaking to honor its commitment expressed in writing in the answer to the application in which it […] acquiesced to the claims of the petitioners,” the State informed the Court that the “‘friendly settlement agreement’ that it had remitted [to the Court] was invalid” as it had been signed “without respecting the norms and practices of the Peruvian State.” Peru then requested the Court “to ignore the request that it deliver judgment contained in the invalidated document, because the latter was not legally valid”; this, despite the fact that, in the final plea of that document, it requested the Court “to declare [that the said document] was not legally valid.” In this brief, the State also undertook to “take every possible step to reach a friendly settlement.” 31. On December 21, 2004, on the instructions of the President, the Secretariat granted until January 14, 2005, for the Commission and the representatives to submit observations on the State’s brief of December 20, 2004. 32. On January 7, 2005, the State presented a brief “expanding the brief on the invalidity of the ‘friendly settlement agreement on reparations and appendix.’” The appendixes to this brief were forwarded to the Court on January 11, 2005. On that occasion, the State argued, inter alia, that some points of the “friendly settlement agreement on reparations and its appendix” violated the American Convention and the provisions of domestic law, by infringing the principle of the presumption of innocence, “because the accused, who ha[d] not been convicted, [were] presumed to be guilty, and it involved actions that implied interference by the Executive Power and violation of the independence and autonomy of other autonomous constitutional bodies.” The State also affirmed that not denouncing the facts would “constitute a legal impossibility, because they ha[d] already been denounced, […] and admitted, and proceedings had been filed, and were underway; furthermore, [it was] a public trial.” In addition, Peru repeated its commitment to “honor […] the brief answering the application […] and to take every possible step to reach a friendly settlement