The fonds contains the decisions of the Major Council, the Minor Council, and the Senate, or of the three supreme institutions of government of the Dubrovnik commune. The books of the fonds date from the 14th and the beginning of the 15th century, and they contain various decisions on all aspects of the policy of the internal and foreign affairs of the Dubrovnik commune and are very important for the research of the earlier history of Dubrovnik.

The fonds contains very few mentions of Jewish people. The references found are from the first half of the 14th century, but they do not seem to be directly connected with the Jewish people. Namely, probably under the influence of church presentations and performances, the people of Dubrovnik would disguise themselves as Jews or Carbonos before Easter, blackening their faces and dressing up in a certain way. Disguised like this they would attack passers-by and use this as an opportunity to deal with their enemies. Authorities forbade them to disguise themselves in such a way, and the first ban under threat of a fine of 25 perpers dates to the time before Easter in 1319. Prohibitions of disguise to Carbonos or Jewish people were repeatedly issued in 1320, 1323, 1329 and 1335. In 1331, the authorities in the Republic allowed such a disguise.

The fonds contains the decisions of the Major Council, the supreme body of power, in which all male adult nobles were assembled. Although the Minor Council and the Senate eventually assumed certain responsibilities of the Major Council, the Major Council retained supreme authority until the fall of the Republic (1808). The Major Council passed regulations of a permanent nature (laws), had the last word in decision-making in the most important state affairs, granted pardon and amnesty, as well as elected the Rector, members of the Senate and the Minor Council, and other state officials.

The granting of Isaac Jeshurun’s appeal is most likely the only mention of Jewish people in this fonds. In 1622, Jeshurun ​​was accused of ritual murder of a girl and, during his interrogation, was subjected to torture. When the real killer was discovered, investigations into Jeshurun's alleged complicity in the murder continued. At the end of 1622, he was sentenced to 20 years in prison. In January 1625, the Senate accepted Jeshurun's petition for pardon and forwarded the petition to the Major Council, as this was the only authority that could make decisions on pardons. The record shows that all petitions or pardon would be presented every year before the Major Council, at a session that used to be held before Easter, on Wednesday, during the Holy Week. On March 26, 1625, the Major Council accepted Jeshurun's proposal to change his prison sentence to life-time exile from the Republic (vol. 34, ff. 200v, 201).

The series contains the decisions of the Senate (Consilium Rogatorum) from the early 15th to the early 19th century. At the beginning of the 14th century, this administrative body became a permanent authority that primarily made decisions on foreign policy of the Republic and was named the Senate during the 15th century. The Senate became the central body of the administrative power of the Dubrovnik Republic, with a very wide field of activities: from making domestic and foreign policies and dealing with issues regarding economy and trade, to making decisions relevant for the destiny of individual citizens. Senate decisions were applicable to a vast geographical area: Europe, North Africa, the Middle East and, to a lesser extent, Latin America. The Senate was chaired by the Rector whose mandate lasted a month. The Rector presided over both: the Minor Council and the Major Council.

The series is very important for the research of the history of the Jewish people. The documents in the series include most of the key decisions made in the times of the Republic that clearly indicate the attitude of the Republic towards the Jews, as well as how this attitude has been changing throughout the history. Attempting to analyse this attitude, one can find data on the business of Jewish merchants in the Mediterranean and the Balkans, as well as on the private life of Jewish people in the Dubrovnik Republic. According to the data, the first records of the Jews can be found in the documents written ten years after the creation of the Acta Consilii Rogatorum series. Franchus Josepovich (Franius, Josep, Yosue), a Jew from an Albanian town of Vlora, addressed the Senate in 1426 because there was a danger that his goods would be confiscated in Dubrovnik (vol. 3, ff. 292, 292v). Early records of Jews include, for example, a reference to Abram, a messenger of the last Bosnian queen, Katarina (1477; vol. 23, f. 137). Another very significant, perhaps even the most significant document on Jews in this series, is the decision about the establishment of a ghetto, made on October 15, in 1546 (vol. 47, ff. 249v-150v). This specific document describes in detail residential and business premises of the ghetto, locking time of the ghetto doors and rental prices. Certain decisions, on the expansion of the ghetto, as well as on standards of living and business conditions outside the ghetto, had been made later, and continued to be made till the fall of the Republic in 1808. The documents in this series reference to many important figures of the Sephardic world. Some of them only passed through Dubrovnik and some lived in Dubrovnik and were members of the Dubrovnik Jewish community such as: Gracia Mendez and her representatives Abner Alfarin and Isac Ergas, physicians Amatus Lusitanus, Abraham and his son-in-law Joseph Salama, a poet Didacus Pyrrhus, a merchant Daniel Rodrigues (16th century), a rabbi Aron Cohen (17th century), and a merchant Raphael Cohen (18th century). Through the decisions of the Senate, we can follow the destiny of a merchant Isaac Jeshurun, accused of a ritual murder of a Dubrovnik girl (1622). There are many references to other Jews in the series, who most often were Sephardim, and the data found refer to various aspects of their lives. Among other things, the data provide information about trading, appointments of Dubrovnik Jews as Dubrovnik state brokers (sensali), or extraordinary customs duties imposed upon the Jewish community in crisis situations such as plague epidemics. The data also reveal other important facts on treatment, rights and privileges of baptized Jewish women and men. The Senate would also give guarantees of free arrival, restricted residence, and free departure (salvus conductus) to Jewish merchant debtors. Some of these decisions were made based on petitions submitted to the Senate, being, therefore, a particularly interesting source for any research of the business and private lives of Dubrovnik Jews.

The series was created by a decree of the Minor Council in 1443, which stipulated keeping a record of undisclosed decisions of the Senate and the Minor Council in special volumes. The volumes consist of undisclosed state provisions that mainly concern the Ottomans, the Catholic Church, the sending of information about the Ottoman Empire to Christian countries, and the fate of those persons whom the authorities considered to be the enemies of the state.

The series covers the period from the end of the 15th to the end of the 17th century and it offers only scarce data about the Jewish people. A reference to an unnamed Jewish physician who carried a state notarial document to Istanbul in 1660 (vol. 5, f. 13v) is probably the only record of Jews in this series.

The series contains the decisions of the Minor Council made in the period from the beginning of the 15th to the beginning of the 19th century. With the cessation of Venetian rule in 1358, the Minor Council and the Rector lost much of their authority. Since then, the Council had mostly dealt with cases related to communal life, that is, it would resolve current affairs that should not burden either the Senate or the Major Council. From today's point of view, it could be said that the Minor Council had executive authority. The Rector, whose mandate lasted only one month, was at the head of the Minor Council and he presided over both the Senate and the Major Council. The Minor council headed by the Rector represented the Republic and held audiences with ambassadors from foreign countries. In cooperation with the Senate, the Minor Council oversaw all correspondence with the consuls of the Dubrovnik Republic, ambassadors (poklisari) and other diplomatic and consular representatives of the Republic in foreign countries, mostly in the Ottoman Empire and in the countries of the Apennine Peninsula. The Minor Council was also in charge of issuing letters to foreign rulers and other dignitaries.

The series contains a lot of information about Jewish people. The data are very important to analyse the attitude of the Dubrovnik Republic towards Jews. The series also provides a large quantity of data to learn about their private lives, as well as about the business of Jewish merchants. In addition, the series is extremely important for the research of private and business lives of Jewish women. The first information about Jews in this series dates to the 20s of the 14th century with, for example, a reference about a Jew by the name of Chrisomus who sold a bell and some copper in Dubrovnik (1428; vol. 4, f. 192v). Bandit attacks on Jews who travelled to Dubrovnik using the ships of the Republic and, most likely, intended to go this way to the Ottoman Empire, at the end of the 15th century, are referenced many times. There are many references in this series to well-known figures from the Sephardic world some of whom only passed through Dubrovnik, and some lived there such as Gracia Mendez and her business representatives Abner Alfarin and Isac Ergas, physicians Amatus Lusitanus, Abraham and his son-in-law Joseph Salama, a poet Didacus Pyrhhus, a merchant Daniel Rodrigues (16th century), a rabbi Aron Cohen (17th century), and a merchant Raphael Cohen (18th century). The series also contains information about sending Jewish physicians, especially Abraham and Joseph Salama, to the courts of Ottoman dignitaries in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Through the decisions of the Minor Council, we can, for example, follow the destiny of the members of the Dubrovnik Jewish community during the court trial against a Jewish merchant Isaac Jeshurun, accused of a ritual murder of a girl from Dubrovnik (1622). If in fear for their own lives, many Jews were allowed to leave Dubrovnik with a special permission of the Minor Council. The series also contains many documents in which free arrival and limited stay to Jewish merchants who were in debt were granted (Lat. salvus conductus). This council would also issue permits for construction projects in the ghetto and for housing purposes outside the ghetto. Occasionally, the Minor Council would also make decisions on the obligation imposed upon Jews to wear a special sign. The series mentions many Jewish women, most often widows, who were given permission by the Minor Council to perform certain legal work with the consent of their guardians. Most often, these were women who wanted to appoint a certain person to represent them to conduct business either in the Dubrovnik Republic or in another country.

There are no references to Jewish people in the series.

The series consists of proposals for various debates submitted to the Senate and the Major Council by the Minor Council in the second half of the 15th century.

The fonds contains the decisions of the Rector of the Dubrovnik Republic in the period from the 70s of the 13th century to the beginning of the 14th century, and from the end of the 14th century to the 60s of the 18th century. The reference to the title “Rector” can be traced back to the 12th century. When the Venetian rule in Dubrovnik ended in 1358, the election of the Rector became the jurisdiction of the Major Council. The candidates for the Rector had to be at least 50 years old and members of the Senate. The Rector’s mandate lasted only one month. With the strengthening of the institutions of the Dubrovnik commune, his role was reduced to a predominantly representative role, and there were hardly any decisions he could make independently. His duties were: to represent the Dubrovnik Republic before the Dubrovnik commoners and before the representatives of foreign states, to preside over the Minor Council, the Major Council, and the Senate, to keep and protect the seal of the Republic and the keys to the city gates. Since the Rector had a central position in the judicial council until the middle of the 15th century, the first volume of this fonds contains records related to various criminal and civil proceedings. In later times, the Rector's decisions mainly dealt with taxations (Cro. gabela) paid for wine production in the territory of the Dubrovnik Republic, decisions related to the amount of rent of real estate in the Republic and cases of the defendant's intentional absence from trial (Lat. contumacia).

The fonds contains only limited information on Jews that mainly relates to their renting of business and residential premises. For example, the names of Joseph Azubi, David Coen, the Lumbroso brothers and Samuel Maestro are referenced in the 20s of the 17th century, related to conflicts over the right to run stores in front of the ghetto, on the main street in Dubrovnik, named Placa, while Aron Coen and Samuel Maestro were referenced to in the records of 1631 since they were in conflict with a nobleman who had rented them a house with a garden in the eastern Dubrovnik suburb of Ploče (vol. 12, f. 24). There is also a brief entry about Esther, the widow of Solomon Luzzena, who in 1680 paid the debt of her late husband to Luka Stella (vol. 14, f. 89v).

One part of the fonds is related to the collection of fines for nobles who were unjustifiably absent from the sessions of the councils (vols. 1-3, 5, 14, 14b). Other volumes contain proposals for debates submitted to the Senate by the Minor Council (vols. 4, 7-13; 1591-1592, 1673, 1694-1808). The topics of these debates are mostly related to the internal affairs of the Dubrovnik Republic. If the motion for a debate is crossed out, the date on the margin of this entry indicates when this debate was held in the Senate. Nevertheless, that does not necessarily mean that the debate was de facto recorded in the Senate registers.

There are not many references to Jews in this fonds. Approximately, in one volume of the fonds, there is an average of 2 to 4 entries concerning Jews (e.g., vol. 10, ff. 14v, 29, 42, 75v; vol. 12, ff. 47, 49; vol. 13, pp. 63c). For example, a proposal to discuss the bankruptcy of Solomon Vitali, and his son and brother, was entered on 25/7/1772. The proposal was crossed out and a note on the margin indicates that the debate was to be held in Senate on the same day (vol. 11, f. 47). However, there is no record of that debate in registers of the Senate.