10 Secretariat, under instructions by the President, asked the Inter-American Commission for its comments on said decree. On February 14, 2003, the Commission pointed out that, after consulting with the representatives of the next of kin of the alleged victim, the latter “mantain[ed] their position regarding the importance of the public hearing convened for March 6, 2003.” 25. On February 27, 2003 the Commission received a copy of the agreement for a friendly settlement reached on February 26, 2003 between the State, the Commission and the representatives of the next of kin of the alleged victim, in which the State recognized its international responsibility in this case. It also asked that the expert opinion of Emilio García Méndez, offered as an expert witness for the public hearing, be received in writing by means of a sworn statement. The following day, the Secretariat requested the observations of the State. On March 3, 2003 the State submitted objections to the offers of evidence made by the Commission. 26. The Court held two public hearings, at which there appeared before the Court: For the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights: Robert K. Goldman, delegate; Víctor Abramovich, delegate; and Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, legal counsel. For the representatives of the next of kin of the alleged victim: Andrea Pochak, representative; and María del Carmen Verdú; representative. For the State of the Republic of Argentina: Silvia Susana Testoni, agent Andrea G. Gualde, alternate agent; and Ambassador Juan José Arcuri. Witness proposed by the Inter-American Commission: Graciela Rosa Scavone. Expert witnesses proposed by the Inter-American Commission: Sofía Tiscornia; and Graciela Marisa Guilis. 27. As a consequence of the friendly settlement reached by the parties and acknowledgment of its international responsibility by the State, on March 6, 2003 the Court held two public hearings (supra 26). In the first of these hearings, the parties read and delivered a document clarifying the meaning and scope of the terms of the agreement (infra 33). Once said hearing concluded, the Court noted that the controversy on the merits of the facts and their legal consequences had ceased, and it issued the following Order: