7 Iván Bazán-Chacón. Expert witnesses presented by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights: Julio Maier; León Carlos Arslanian; and Héctor Faúndez-Ledezma. Mr. Nigel Rodley, one of the experts witnesses presented by the Inter-American Commission, did not attend this hearing, although he had been summoned by the Court. 18. On April 21, 1997, Peru presented the brief containing its closing arguments, and the Commission did so on April 30. 19. On June 23, 1997, the Court, so as better to decide, requested Peru to furnish it with a number of legal texts, and asked the Commission to dispatch the communication in which Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo filed the res judicata objection based on the principle of non bis in idem. On July 16, 1997, the Commission filed a copy of that communication together with a copy of an explanatory document dated April 14, 1994; the 1993 Political Constitution of Peru and a publication entitled "Legislación sobre Terrorismo y Pacificación." On August 28, 1997, the State forwarded the other legal texts requested by the Court. 20. On June 23, 1997, Peru wrote to the Court and informed it that on September 27, 1996, Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo requested a pardon to the ad hoc Commission created by Law Nº 26.655. 21. On August 24, 1995, and May 16, 1996, the "Fundación Ecuménica para el Desarrollo y la Paz" (FEDEPAZ) and Mr. Nicolás de Piérola-Balta, submitted amici curiae briefs on the principle of non bis in idem. 22. On September 22, 1995, and August 8, 1996, Peru requested that the amici curiae presented be declared inadmissible. The President, through his communications of September 23, 1995, and September 11, 1996, informed the State that "documents of this type are added to the file without being formally incorporated into the record of the proceedings," and that the Court would evaluate those documents in due course. VI 23. On April 19, 1996, the Inter-American Commission remitted to the Secretariat a copy of a brief that had been sent to Peru concerning Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo's conditions of detention. In that brief it requested the State, pursuant to Article 29 of its Regulations, to adopt precautionary measures on behalf of Ms. Loayza. On May 28, 1996, Peru submitted a note to the Secretariat, in response to the Commission's inquiries concerning the detention conditions, informing it that Loayza Tamayo had now been convicted by the Supreme Court of Justice and that she would have to serve her sentence in the manner and conditions dictated by the laws in force in Peru. 24. On May 30, 1996, the Inter-American Commission submitted a request for provisional measures on behalf of Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo, in accordance with Article 63(2) of the Convention and Article 24(1) of the Rules of Procedure then in force, in which it asked the Inter-American Court to order the State to "bring to an end the solitary confinement and incommunicado detention imposed on María Elena Loayza-Tamayo on April 9, 1996, and that she be returned to Block 'A' of the Chorrillos Women's Maximum Security