10 judgment “establishing the political motivation for the execution of the victims, the institutional agents involved in the facts, the denial of justice in this particular case, the acts and omissions of the State that engaged its international responsibility, among other relevant legal considerations and facts to clarify the truth and avoid such irregular facts as those involved […] and acknowledged by the State happening again.” In this way, the Court could “provide […] an official version of the facts […], bearing in mind the testimonies of the next of kin, witnesses and expert witnesses proposed in the context of the public hearing.” 43. On July 5, 2004, both the Inter-American Commission and the representatives ratified in writing their verbal acceptance of the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility. 44. Of July 5, 2004, following the conclusion of the first part of the public hearing, the Court issued an order (infra para. 80), in which it decided, inter alia, to admit the State’s acknowledgement of international responsibility and to continue holding the public hearing, but circumscribing its purpose to reparations and costs. The statements of the witnesses and the expert witness were heard during this hearing and also the arguments of the Inter-American Commission, the representatives, and the State. * * * 45. During the public hearing the Inter-American Commission representatives presented different documents to the Court. and the 46. On July 8, 2004, the representatives forwarded the original of the statement made before notary public (affidavit) of Sydney Shaw Arrivillaga, in response to the note of the President of July 3, 2004, because this witness could not attend the public hearing (supra para. 35). 47. On August 3, 2004, the State presented its final written arguments. On August 5, 2004, both the Commission and the representatives presented their final written arguments. 48. On August 9, 2004, Fernando Linares Beltranena submitted an amicus curiae brief. 49. On October 27, 2004, on the instructions of the President, the Secretariat requested the Commission, the representatives and the State to present certain documents as helpful evidence by November 5, 2004, at the latest. 50. On November 5 and 9, 2004, the representatives presented the documentary evidence that had been requested as helpful evidence. 51. On November 5, 2004, the State requested an extension for presentation of the evidence requested. However, as the Court already had this documentation, which had been provided by the representatives, it considered it unnecessary to grant the requested extension. On November 16, 2004, the Secretariat transmitted the helpful evidence to the respective parties.