4 arguments (hereinafter “answer to the application”). The preliminary objections raised were related to the alleged lack of ratione temporis competence of the Court to hear the instant case and to an alleged procedural violation during the proceeding of the instant case before the Commission which allegedly constituted a violation of the right of the State to be heard. On December 23, 2005 the State filed the appendixes to its answer to the application. 18. On December 8, 2005 the Secretariat, pursuant to Article 37(4) of the Rules of Procedure, granted the Commission and the representatives a term of thirty days to submit their written comments regarding the preliminary objections raised by the State (supra para. 17). The representative did not file any comments. 19. On January 6, 2006 the Commission filed its written comments on the preliminary objections raised by the State, attaching documentary evidence thereto. 20. On February 7, 2006 the Court issued an Order wherein it considered it relevant to admit the testimony of Cristián Correa-Montt, witness proposed by the State, by means of an affidavit. Furthermore, the President summoned the Commission, the representative, and the State to a public hearing which was to be held at the seat of the High Court of Justice of Brazil, Brasilia, on March 29, 2006, to hear their final oral arguments on the preliminary objections; merits, reparations, and costs in the instant case, as well as the testimony of Elvira Gómez-Olivares, proposed as witness by the representative, of Jorge Correa-Sutil, proposed as witness by the State, of Humberto Raúl Ignacio Nogueira-Alcala, proposed as expert witness by the Commission, and of Cristián Maturana-Miquel, proposed as expert witness by the State. By means of said Order, the President also informed the parties that they were entitled to submit their final written arguments regarding the preliminary objections; merits, reparations and indemnities; and legal costs and expenses until May 12, 2006. 21. On March 10, 2006 the State submitted the statement given by Cristián Correa-Montt, which had been requested by the Court (supra para. 20). On March 21, 2006, the State filed the appendixes thereto. 22. On March 16, 2006 the State informed that, for reasons beyond his will, expert witness Cristián Maturana-Miquel, summoned to give testimony before the Inter-American Court at a public hearing (supra para. 20) would be unable to go to Brasilia, wherefore he would not give testimony. Due to the foregoing, the State requested the Court that it allow the expert statement to be given by the above expert witness to be replaced by the expert statement of Alejandro Salinas-Rivera and that Mr. Maturana-Miquel be authorized to give testimony by means of an affidavit. On that same day, the Secretary, on instructions from the President, requested the Commission and the representative to submit their comments on the request made by the State. 23. On March 17, 2006 the Commission filed its comments, wherein it stated that it did not oppose the request made by the State so that Mr. Maturana-Miquel be authorized to give testimony through an affidavit. Furthermore, the Commission pointed out that the request made by the State for Mr. Salinas-Rivera to be admitted as an alternative expert witness “was not relevant,” on the grounds of the estoppel principle and the fact that the State had not filed it at the appropriate procedural stage,” and considered that the proposal of Mr. Salinas-Rivera “is not a replacement, but an addition.” Furthermore, the Commission stated that Mr. Salinas-Rivera “is not