-7- 42. On July 14, 2006, the State submitted a communication with “comments and observations” on the amicus curiae brief presented by CEJIL on June 5, 2006 (supra para. 38). 43. On July 18, 2006, the alleged victims’ representative responded to the request for helpful evidence in the Secretariat’s note of July 5, 2006 (supra para. 39). 44. On July 25, 2006, the Secretariat informed the parties that, on the instructions of the President, they were granted seven days to forward any observations they deemed pertinent on the helpful evidence presented on July 11 and 18, 2006 (supra paras. 41 and 43). 45. On July 28, 2006, Chile presented its observations on the helpful evidence submitted by the Inter-American Commission and the alleged victims’ representative in briefs of July 11 and 18, 2006, respectively (supra paras. 39, 41, 43 and 44). 46. On July 31, 2006, the Commission submitted a brief indicating that “it had no observations to make” on the helpful evidence presented by the alleged victims’ representative (supra para. 43). 47. On August 7, 2006, the alleged victims’ representative forwarded the electronic version of the “[nineteenth] report of the Presidential Advisory Committee for the Protection of Human Rights, corresponding to the second quarter of 2006” and requested “its incorporation as part of the evidence provided in the instant case.” V EVIDENCE A) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 48. The documentary evidence submitted by the parties included the written testimonial statements and expert opinions requested by Court in its order of February 7, 2006 (supra para. 23). These statements and opinions are summarized below: TESTIMONIES a) Proposed by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 1. Luis Sebastián Cox Urrejola, alleged victim He is a lawyer and representative of the non-governmental organization “FORJA”, whose purpose is to improve the capacity of individuals and groups to exercise their rights.