7 Leonardo Jun Ferreira-Hidaka, and Lilly Ching; b) For the representatives: James Louis Cavallaro and Fernando Delgado, and Renata Verônica Côrtes de Lira and Deborah Popowski; c) For the State: Milton Nunes de Toledo-Junior, Francisco Soares Alvim-Neto, Christiano Sávio Barros-Figuerôa, Alfredo Schechtmann and Alexandre Pinto-Moreira, and Maria Luiza Ribeiro-Viotti, Carolina Campos de Melo, Renata Lucia de Toledo-Pelizon and Márcia Adorno-Ramos. The public hearing comprised two parts. During the first part of the public hearing, the State, the Commission and the representatives referred to the preliminary objection filed by the State. 35. On November 30, 2005, the Court rendered Judgment on the Preliminary Objection, whereby it decided: 1. To dismiss the preliminary objection filed by the State concerning the lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies. 2. To continue holding the public hearing convened under the Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights dated September 22, 2005, and to proceed with the procedural stages associated with the merits of the case, the reparations and indemnities in the instant case. […] 36. The Judgment on the Preliminary Objection was notified to the parties; afterwards, the public hearing proceeded into the second part. At the beginning, the State acknowledged its international responsibility for the violation of Articles 4 and 5 of the American Convention in the instant case ( infra paras. 63 and 66). To that respect, both the Commission and the representatives referred to the acknowledgment made by the State ( infra paras. 64 and 65). Then, the Court decided to continue holding the public hearing in order to hear the testimony and expert opinions of the persons summoned to appear before the Court and hear the final arguments on the merits, possible reparations and indemnities, taking into account the acknowledgment of responsibility made by the State. Witness João Alfredo TelesMelo produced some documents during his testimony. Furthermore, during the public hearing, the representatives and the State furnished some documents. 37. On December 23, 2005, the Commission filed its final written arguments. On January 4, 2006, the Commission submitted the exhibits to said arguments and stated that they contained documents produced after the date of filing of the application and that, therefore, they must be deemed supervening evidence under Article 44(3) of the Rules of Procedure. 38. On January 9, 2006, the representatives and the State submitted their final written arguments. 39. On June 13, 2006, the Secretariat, following instructions of the President according to Article 45 of the Rules of Procedure, requested the Commission the representatives and the State to produce evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the case. 40. On June 22 and 26, 2006, the Commission and the representatives, respectively, submitted evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the case. On June 26 and 28, 2006, the State submitted evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the case.