5 representatives] seeking to achieve an amicable solution,” reason for which they considered that it was “possible to omit a public hearing” in this case. 25. On March 18, 2005, the President issued an Order through which he decided, pursuant to that stated by the parties and considering that the Tribunal had enough evidence to decide on the case, to omit the public hearing. He also decided to request, through statement given by affidavit, the expert report of Mr. Reinaldo Calvachi Cruz, offered by the representatives of the alleged victim, which had to be presented no later than April 15, 2005, and requested that the State and the Commission present the observations considered appropriate within a non-extendable ten-day term, as of its receipt. Finally, the President decided to grant the parties time until May 16, 2005 to present their final written allegations with regard to the merits and possible reparations and costs in the instant case. The parties were notified of the mentioned Order on this same date. 26. On April 15, 2005, the representatives presented Mr. Reinaldo Calvachi Cruz’s expert report. 27. On April 25, 2005, the State requested that the communications regarding the case of Acosta Calderón should be sent to the main agent, Minister Julio Prado Espinosa, the deputy agent, Doctor Erick Roberts, and the provision agent, Doctor Juan Leoro Almeida, Ambassador of Ecuador in Costa Rica. 28. On April 28, 2005 the Commission pointed out that they had no observations to Mr. Reinaldo Calvachi Cruz’s expert report. The State did not present any observations to Mr. Reinaldo Calvachi Cruz’s expert report. 29. On May 6, 2005 the State presented the evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case that had been requested (supra para. 20), with the exception of the Law on the Control of the Trafficking of Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances that was in force until September 1990. 30. On May 11, 2005 the State presented information, in attention to that requested by the President of the Court through Order of March 18, 2005 (supra para. 25), in which “it insisted on the possibility of an amicable solution” and considered that “in order to reach an agreement of this nature, it was essential that Mr. Rigoberto Acosta Calderón be located.” The State also pointed out that the Court “must wait for the result of the conversations between the representatives of the alleged victim, Mr. Acosta [Calderón] and the State, aimed at reaching an amicable agreement and know the [alleged victim’s] current whereabouts.” Ecuador also requested that the Court issue “a ruling regarding the continuation of the amicable solution process [...] prior to issuing any report.” 31. On May 16, 2005 the representatives presented their brief of final pleadings with regard to the merits and the possible reparations and costs. 32. On May 19, 2005 the Commission presented its brief of final pleadings with regard to the merits and possible reparations and costs. 33. On May 31, 2005 the representatives presented a copy of the Law on the Control of the Trafficking of Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances of 1990.