-12common intervener: Ana María Zegarra-Laos, representative; Francisco Ercilio Moura, counsel; and Angélica Castañeda-Flores, assistant; and c) by Peru: Mario Pasco-Cosmópolis, agent; César González-Hunt, Deputy Agent; José Alberto DanósOrdoñez, assistant, and Máximo Licurgo Pinto-Ruiz, advisor. Likewise, the following witnesses appeared before the Court: Corina Antonieta Tarazona-Valverde, witness proposed by the common intervener; César Azabache-Carracciolo and Enrique ZileriGibson, witnesses proposed by the State (supra para. 51.) Furthermore, the Court heard the final Arguments by the Commission, the common intervener and the State. During the public hearing, when presenting its final arguments, the State submitted several documents which were forwarded to the other parties. 65. On September 26, 2005, the State filed its comments to the expert opinion rendered in writing by Samuel B. Abad-Yupanqui (supra paras. 60 and 61.) 66. On September 27, 2005, the State filed a brief with comments on the request made by the Commission in its brief of September 16, 2005, in order to “not to admit the brief submitted [by the Municipality of Lima] in the capacity of amicus curiae on August 12, 2005]” (supra para. 62.) 67. On September 30, 2005 Josmell Muñoz-Córdoba “informed that he could not fulfil his duties as an [expert witness]” (supra paras. 51 and 58.) 68. On October 11, 2005, the State filed comments to the original statement of witness Juan de Dios Berrospi-Pérez (supra para. 54). 69. On October 14, 2005, the Secretariat, following instructions of the President, notify the parties about the documents or explanations that the Court requested them to provide after the final oral arguments at the public hearing (supra para. 64,) some of which the parties had to forward no later than October 24, 2005, which was the due date for filing the final written arguments. Likewise, and following instructions of the President, the parties were requested to forward certain documents as evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the case and the State was also requested to submit explanations as regards the determination of the alleged victims. 70. On October 18, 2005, the common intervener filed a brief containing its comments to the compact disc submitted by the State on September 20, 2005 prior to the holding of the public hearing (supra para 63.) On November 23, 2005, the common intervener filed the appendixes to said comments. 71. On October 21, 2005, the Commission filed a brief containing its comments to the compact disc submitted by the State on September 20, 2005 prior to the holding of the public hearing (supra para 63.) 72. On October 24 and 25, 2005, the common intervener submitted the information that the Court had requested after the final oral arguments at the public hearing; and by note of October 14, 2005 (supra para. 69,) the common intervener informed that he was sending a copy of the requested documents to the parties as evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the case (supra para. 69.) It also submitted its final written arguments as regards the preliminary objections, and possibly on the merits of the case, reparations and indemnities, and attached documents as appendixes. On November 23, 2005, the common intervener presented said documentation and appendixes (infra para. 83.)