-5offer of evidence made by the representative in his requests and arguments brief and called upon him to present this evidence directly to the Court. 24. On February 17, 2006, the alleged victims’ representative and the State requested an extension to present the testimonies and expert evidence provided by statements before notary public, in response to the request made in the Court’s order of February 7, 2006. The President of the Court granted the representative, the State and the Commission the requested extension until March 10, 2006. 25. On February 17, 2006, the Asociación por los Derechos Civiles (ADC) submitted a brief in which, “in its capacity as one of the original petitioners before the Commission,” it requested authorization to intervene in the public hearing on April 3, 2006. On the instructions of the President, the Secretariat admitted the brief submitted by ADC as an amicus curiae. Regarding the request to take part in the public hearing, it did not allow the Association to participate directly, informing it that only those persons accredited by the parties to the case could present their arguments. 26. On March 10, 2006, the Inter-American Commission forwarded the written statements of the witnesses, Luis Sebastián Cox Urrejola and Arturo Longton Guerrero. The same day, Chile forwarded the written statements of the witnesses, Andrés Emilio Culagovski Rubio and Liliana Guiditta Macchiavelo Martini, and the expert witness, Claudio Francisco Castillo Castillo (supra paras. 23 and 24). 27. On March 13, 2006, the alleged victims’ representative forwarded the written statements of the expert witnesses, Tomás Vial Solar, Miguel Ángel Fernández González and Davor Harasic Yaksic (supra paras. 23 and 24). The representative also forwarded four documents “issued after the requests brief had been presented,” “[p]ursuant to Article 44(3) of the Rules of Procedure” of the Court. In addition, in relation to the evidence admitted by the Court in its order of February 7, 2006 (supra para. 23), the representative sent a report issued on February 15, 2006, by the Chairman of the Presidential Advisory Committee for the Protection of Human Rights, together with a communication from the Executive Director of the Open Society Justice Initiative dated February 20, 2006, enclosing a report entitled: “Transparency and Silence. A Survey of Access to Information Laws and Practices in Fourteen Countries.” Lastly, the representative forwarded two amici curiae briefs submitted by the Center for Legal and Social Studies (CELS) and Damián M. Loreti and Analía Elíades (professors, the UNESCO Freedom of Expression Chair of the School of Journalism, Universidad Nacional de La Plata), and by Gastón Gómez Bernales (professor of the Law School of the Universidad Diego Portales). The representative’s brief and appendixes were first received by e-mail on March 10, 2006. 28. On March 27, 2006, the Commission submitted a brief in which it stated that “it had no comments to make” on the evidence presented by the alleged victims’ representative (supra para. 27), and that “it had no comments on the sworn statements submitted to the Court” by the State and the representative (supra paras. 26 and 27). 29. expert (supra (supra On March 28, 2006, Chile remitted its comments on the written testimonies and opinions submitted by the Commission and the alleged victims’ representative paras. 26 and 27), and also on the evidence forwarded by the representative para. 27).