16 department of Lima and the constitutional province of Callao between September 22 and November 17, 1993; and b) that it inform the Secretariat in regard to receipt of notes Nos. 7-5-M/211, 7-5M/019, 7-5-M/082, 7-5-M/144, 7-5-M/207 and 7-5-M/242-A, dated July 12, 1993, January 24, March 28, July 19 and August 23, 1994, at the Executive Secretariat of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. These notes were referenced in the Peruvian Government’s brief of January 7, 1999, forwarded to the Commission on January 25 of that year (CDH/11-319/211). 77. On February 17 and March 10, 1999, the State tendered part of the information requested.16 78. On January 7, 1999, the Director of the OAS General Secretariat’s Department of International Law, Mr. Jean-Michael Arrighi, reported that no notification had been received from Peru concerning suspension of guarantees in the period from January 1, 1993 to June 1, 1994. On February 16, 1999, the State took issue with the content of that communication (supra 50). 79. In the instant case, the Court is evaluating documents submitted by the Commission and the State that were neither disputed nor challenged by either party. The document that the State challenged, which the Court had ordered to facilitate adjudication of the case (supra 50), exercising its authority under Article 44 of its Rules of Procedure, is a document issued by a representative of the OAS General Secretariat, which is an appropriate body to speak to the matter about which it was consulted. The Court therefore orders that the document be admitted into evidence in the instant case.17 TESTIMONY 80. In its application, the Commission offered the following persons as witnesses: Héctor Salazar Ardiles, León Carlos Arslanian, Teresa Valdez Escobar, María Angélica Mellado Saavedra, Sandra Cecilia Castillo Petruzzi, Jaime Castillo Navarrete, Juana Ramírez Gonveya, Gloria Cano, Grimaldo Achaui Loaiza and Gabriel Asencio Mansilla. 81. The State offered no witnesses. In its answer to the application, however, the State challenged witnesses Teresa Valdez Escobar, María Angélica Mellado Saavedra, Sandra Cecilia Castillo Petruzzi, Jaime Castillo Navarrete and Juana Ramírez Gonveya, arguing that they would be “unable to offer any valid testimony 16. Cf. Note No. 7-5-M/211 of July 12, 1993; Note No. 7-5-M/082 of March 28,1994; Note No. 7-5M/144 of May 13, 1994; Note No. 7-5-M/207 of July 19, 1994; Note No. 7-5-M/242-A of August 23, 1994; Note No. 7-5-M/262 of September 09, 1994; Note No. 7-5-M/271 of September 22, 1994; Note No. 7-5M/015 of January 23, 1995, and Note No. 7-5-M/019 of January 24, 1994, all of which were from the Permanent Mission of Peru to the Organization of American States to the Executive Secretariat of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights; Supreme Decree No. 063-DE/CCFFAA, of September 13, 1993; Law No. 24.150 (establishing the rules and regulations that must be followed during states of emergency when the armed forces assume control of internal order in all or part of the territory); DecreeLaw No. 24.150, which entered into force on June 8, 1985; Decree-Law No. 740 (amending Article 5 of Law No. 24.150, to regulate relations between the Military Political Command in areas where states of emergency have been declared, and various authorities within its jurisdiction), November 8, 1991; Supreme Decree No.036-93-JUS, published in El Peruano on September 18, 1994. 17. Cf. Suárez Rosero Case, Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights), Judgment of January 20, 1999, Series C No. 44, para. 33.