-610. Public hearing. On July 28, 2014, the President of the Court issued an order,3 in which he convened the State, the representative, and the Inter-American Commission to a public hearing on the preliminary objection and eventual merits, reparations and costs, in order to hear the final oral arguments of the parties, and the final oral observations of the Commission on those issues. In addition, in this order, he requested that the statements of the presumed victim, two witnesses and five expert witnesses be received by affidavit, and these were presented by the parties and the Commission on August 18, 25 and 29, 2014, respectively. The representative and the State were given the opportunity to pose questions and make observations to the deponents offered by the other party.4 The Commission was able to question one of the State’s expert witnesses. Also, in the same order, the President convened three expert witnesses proposed by the State to testify during the public hearing. The public hearing took place on September 3, 2014, during the fiftyfirst special session of the Court, held in Asunción, Paraguay.5 During this hearing, the State presented certain documents and the judges of the Court requested specific helpful information and explanations. 11. Amicus curiae. The Court received one amicus curiae brief from María Isabel Mosquera Ayala on September 18 and 23, 2014. 12. Final written arguments and observations. On October 3, 2014, the parties and the Commission presented their final written arguments and observations, respectively. With their final written arguments, the parties provided some of the helpful information, explanations and evidence requested by the judges of this Court (supra para. 10), as well as certain documentation. On November 3, 2014, the Secretariat of the Court, on the President’s instructions, asked the parties and the Commission to present any observations they deemed pertinent on this documentation. 13. Helpful information and evidence. On November 3, 2014, and March 25, 2015, the President of the Court asked the State and the representative for specific helpful information and documentation. The State presented the requested information and explanations on November 17 and December 1, 2014, and on April 10, 2015. 14. Observations on the helpful information and evidence, as well as on the supervening evidence on costs and expenses. On November 17, 2014, the State and the representative presented their observations on the helpful information, explanations and documentation provided with the final written arguments (supra para. 12). On December 19, 2014, the Commission indicated that it had no observations to make on the documentation submitted by the State on November 17 and December 1, 2014, and, on May 4, 2015, it forwarded its observations on the documentation provided on April 10, 2015. The representative did not present observations on the helpful information and documentation submitted by the State on November 17 and December 1, 2014, and April 10, 2015. 3 Cf. Case of Wong Ho Wing v. Peru. Decision of the President of the Court of July 28, 2014. Available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/wong_28_07_2014.doc. 4 Although, under the second operative paragraphs of the President’s order of July 28, 2014, both parties were given the opportunity to pose questions to the deponents whose statements were required by affidavit, the representative did not forward any questions for the deponents proposed by the State and the Commission. 5 There appeared at this hearing: (a) for the Inter-American Commission: James Louis Cavallaro, Commissioner and Silvia Serrano Guzmán and Erick Acuña, Advisers of the Executive Secretariat; (b) for the presumed victim: Luis Lamas Puccio and Miguel Ángel Soria Fuerte, and (c) for the State: Luis Alberto Huerta Guerrero, Special Supranational Public Prosecutor, Agent, and Sofía Janett Donaires Vega and Carlos Miguel Reaño Balarezo, lawyers of the Special Supranational Public Prosecutor’s Office.