6 24. On May 25, 2005, the President issued an Order requiring Mr. Carlos Paz, a witness proposed by the Commission and the representatives, Messrs. Mrs. Gisela Romero, Mrs. Raquel Romero, Edgar Román Arias, Alfredo Vásquez, Oswaldo Domínguez and Raúl Cubas, witnesses proposed by the representatives, and Messrs. Jesús España-Reyes, Luis Díaz-Curvelo and Mrs. Vanessa Davis, witnesses proposed by the State, to forward their testimonies through affidavits. Furthermore, in said Order, the President summoned the Inter-American Commission, the representatives and the State to a public hearing to be held at the seat of the Inter-American Court as from June 27, 2005, to hear the final oral arguments on the merits and reparations, costs and expenses in the instant case, as well as the testimonies of the witnesses and expert witnesses proposed by the Inter-American Commission, the representatives and the State (infra para. 26). In such Order, the President also informed the parties that their term for submitting their final written arguments regarding the merits of the case and the reparations and costs and expenses would expire on July 28, 2005. 25. On June 14, 2005, the representatives submitted the testimonies and the reports rendered through affidavits as requested by the President (supra para. 24). 26. On June 27 and 28, 2005, the Court held the public hearing at which there appeared: a) for the Inter-American Commission: Susana Villarán de la Puente, Delegate; Santiago Canton, Delegate; Lilly Ching, Advisor and Víctor H. MadrigalBorloz, Advisor; b) for the representatives: Gilma Tatiana Rincón-Covelli, counsel for CEJIL; Ana Aliverti, counsel for CEJIL; Liliana Ortega, counsel for COFAVIC; Mao Santiago, counsel for COFAVIC; José Gregorio Guarenas, counsel for the Episcopal Vicarship and Carlos Ayala-Corao, counsel for the Episcopal Vicarship; and c) for the State: Nora Uribe-Trujillo, Ambassador; María Auxiliadora Monagas, Agent; Esluve Sosa-Carrero, Advisor; José Alejandro Terán, Advisor; Raquel del Rocío GásperiArellano, Advisor and Jorge Rasquín-M., Advisor. There also appeared Mrs. Alejandra Josefina Irate de Blanco, Mrs. Nélida Josefina Fernández-Pelicie, witnesses proposed by the Commission and the representatives; Mr. Edgar López, witness proposed by the representatives and Mr. José Rossel-Senhenn expert witness proposed by the representatives. 27. On June 28, 2005, during the abovementioned public hearing, the State proceeded to read a brief dated on that same day, wherein it stated, inter alia, the following: [t]his being the occasion set by the Court for a hearing on the merits and reparations in the Case of Oscar José Blanco-Romero et al., with the permission of the Court as due, the State appears before this Honorable Court to acquiesce to the claims asserted in the application filed against the State of Venezuela and, in good faith, to acknowledge its international responsibility in the instant case, all of which in furtherance of the principle established in Article 53(2) of its Rules of Procedure and, to that effect, to offer a friendly settlement before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the petitioners. 28. During the public hearing, after the acknowledgment of responsibility made by the State, the Commission stated, inter alia, the following: Their being full acquiescence, there should be no contested issues, neither in fact nor in law; however, a dispute does arise from the brief submitted by the State. Therefore, the Commission considers that the brief submitted by the State should be materially amended in order to satisfy the claims asserted in the application filed by the Commission and, were this not possible, the instant case should follow the ordinary course of proceedings […]