4 arguments of the parties on the preliminary objections and possible merits, reparations and costs. On December 14, 2007, the Commission advised that it desisted from providing the expert evidence offered. On January 30, 2008, the State asked the Court to consider the possibility of redistributing the stages of the public hearing in order to make a distinction between a first stage with arguments on preliminary objections and a second stage with arguments on possible merits, reparations and costs; this was accepted by the Court. Also, on February 6, 2008, the representatives submitted various requests in relation to the public hearing, which were considered and decided by the Court in a meeting held before the hearing. 11. The public hearing was held on February 8, 2008, during the seventy-eighth regular session of the Court.3 Both the representatives and the State submitted probative documents during the said hearing. On March 12, 2008, the alleged victim forwarded his brief with final arguments, to which he attached several documents, including vouchers for the expenses incurred in relation to the public hearing. On March 10, 2008, the InterAmerican Commission and the State forwarded their respective final arguments briefs. Lastly, on July 19, 2008, the representatives forwarded a brief on “certain supervening facts” relating to the deliberations of the Supreme Court of Justice of July 3, 2008, concerning the constitutional validity of the norm which establishes that only the political parties may request the registration of candidacies for elected public office, and attached a copy of the “stenographic version” of this session. On July 30, 2008, the Inter-American Commission advised that it did not have any observations on the representatives’ brief, because, when adopting its report on admissibility and merits in this case, the Commission had not declared “a violation of Article 23 of the American Convention.” On the same date, the State forwarded its observations, reiterating the arguments submitted during the processing of the case and, in particular, it indicated that the stenographic version forwarded “is not of a supervening nature, nor is it related to the litigation before the Court.” The State added that the content of the stenographic version “has no probative value” and that the final decision “will only be known when the corresponding judgment is notified.” 12. In addition, on January 24 and 31, February 6 and 7, April 28, and July 7 and 21, 2008, respectively, the Court received amicus curiae briefs from the following individuals and institutions: Jorge Santistevan de Noriega; the Mexican Lawyers’ Professional Association; a group of students, former students and academics of the Human Rights master’s degree program of the Universidad Iberoamericana of Mexico; the Parliamentary Group of the Convergence Party; a group of post-graduate and licentiate students of the Law School of the Universidad Autónoma de Mexico; Socorro Apreza Salgado, Ricardo Alberto Ortega Soriano and Jorge Humberto Meza of the Law School of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; and Imer Flores of the Juridical Research Institute of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. 3 At the audience, there appeared: (a) for the Inter-American Commission: Florentín Meléndez and Santiago Cantón, Delegates, and Juan Pablo Albán and Lilly Ching Soto, Advisers; (b) for the representatives of the alleged victim: Fabián Aguinaco Bravo, Santiago Corcuera Cabezut and Federico Reyes Heroles; and (c) for the State: Juan Manuel Gómez-Robledo, Ambassador and Vice Minister for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights, Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Miguel Alessio Robles, Legal Adviser of the Federal Executive; María Carmen Oñate Muñoz, Ambassador, Mexican Embassy in Costa Rica; Joel Hernández García, Ambassador, Legal Unit, Ministry of Governance; Rolando Wilfredo de Lassé Cañas, Director of Juridical Affairs, Federal Electoral Institute; Alejandro Negrín, Minister-Director General for Human Rights and Democracy, Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Ana Luz Brun Iñarritu, Director General of Constitutional Studies and Consultations, Legal Advisory Services, Federal Executive; Víctor Manuel Uribe Aviña, Associate Legal Consultant, Ministry of Foreign Affairs; José Luis Alcudi Agoya, Associate Director General of Social Communication, Ministry of Foreign Affairs; José Ignacio Martín del Campo, Director of Litigation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs; and Jorge Ulises Carmona Tinoco, External Adviser, Federal Electoral Institute.