6 28. On October 28, 2005, the representatives submitted the affidavit of Milton Freire-Pereira. 29. On November 9, 2005, the Commission filed objections to the testimonies of witnesses and expert witnesses presented by the State and the representatives, and on the witness substitution request made by the State. The Commission pointed out that the testimony of José Jackson Coelho-Sampaio “is not actually a testimony […], but an expert report” and that “he has not been proposed as expert witness by the Court.” Therefore, the Commission suggested that the conclusions and opinions of Coelho-Sampaio should not be taken as evidence and that the Court should not consider other elements of his testimony as sufficient proof of the events in the instant case. Regarding the witness substitution requested by the State, the Commission considered that, in spite of the fact that Emílio de Medeiros-Viana would not stand in the public hearing and taking into account that the State had already presented his written testimony, “what has been actually requested is a change in the form of rendering testimony […], therefore, the request should be dismissed. ” The Commission filed no objections to the testimonies of Braz Geraldo Peixoto, Domingos Sávio do Nascimento-Alves, Luís Fernando Farah-Tófoli and Milton FreirePereira, but mentioned that it reserved the right to object them at future procedural stages. 30. On November 9, 2005, the representatives filed objections to the testimonies of witnesses and expert witnesses presented by the Commission and the State. The representatives stated that the request filed by the State for the Court to admit as evidence the testimony of Emílio de Medeiros-Viana should be dismissed on the grounds that he was legally barred from rendering testimony in the instant case. Furthermore, the representatives challenged the substitution of witness Pedro Gabriel Godinho-Delgado for Medeiros-Viana as proposed by the State on the grounds that said substitution was unjustified and generated a procedural imbalance between the parties that could be detrimental. The representatives filed some objections to the testimonies of José Jackson Coelho-Sampaio, Domingos Sávio do Nascimento, Alves Braz Geraldo Peixoto and Luís Fernando Farah-de-Tófoli. On November 11, 2005, the representatives filed the expert opinion of Dalmo de AbreuDallari. 31. On November 18, 2005, the State appointed Sérgio Ramos de Matos-Brito as deputy agent of the State and requested the Court to rule, during the public hearing, on the preliminary objection concerning the lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies filed by the State (supra para. 21). 32. On November 24, 2005, the Court issued an Order requiring Pedro Gabriel Godinho-Delgado, a witness for the State, to appear as witness in the public hearing to be held on November 30, 2005 (supra para. 24). 33. On November 29, 2005, the Court issued an Order requiring its President, Judge Sergio García-Ramírez, Vice-President, Judge Alirio Abreu-Burelli, Judge Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade, Judge Cecilia Medina-Quiroga and Judge Manuel E. Ventura-Robles to appear in the public hearing to be held in the instant case (supra para. 24). 34. On November 30 and December 1, 2005, the Court held a public hearing where the following persons were in attendance: a) For the Inter-American Commission: Florentín Meléndez, Ignacio J. Álvarez, Víctor Madrigal-Borlotz,