5 . 13. On June 20, 2008 the representatives presented “challenges and objections” to an expert opinion included in this case. On that same date, the Commission informed that it did not have “observations to present” in this sense and asked the Court to, pursuant with that stated in Article 45(1) of its Rules of Procedure, include in the present case two expert opinions offered in another case. On June 26, 2008 the State presented a “formal challenge” against four of the experts summoned to offer their opinion. Between July 2 and 7, 2008 the parties and the experts challenged presented their corresponding observations. Additionally, on July 10, 2008 the representatives requested that an additional expert opinion offered in another case be included. 14. On July 22, 2008 the President issued an order in which it dismissed the challenges presented by the representatives and by the State, as well as the Commission’s request to include in the present case two expert opinions offered in the case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela. Similarly, the President decided to include in the body of evidence of the present case, in application of the stipulations of Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure, an expert opinion of Mr. Alberto Arteaga, offered in the mentioned case. 15. On August 7, 2008 the public hearing was held during the LXXX Sessions of the Court at its headquarters, which was presided by Judge García Ramírez.10 16. On September 8, 2008 the Commission, the representatives, and the State presented, respectively, their final written arguments in relation to the preliminary objections and the possible merits, reparations, and costs in this case. 17. On October 13, 2008, following instructions of the President and in the terms of Article 45(1) of its Rules of Procedure, the State was required to present a complete and punctual report, issued by the competent authorities, regarding the current state and the actions taken in the investigations and legal proceedings that are either open or were processed in relation to the complaints or remedies presented by the alleged victims in the present case, in the measure that said information not be already included in the case file.11 On November 4th of that same year, after an extension granted, the State presented a report of the Solicitor General’s Office and other documents. A term was granted to the representatives and to the Commission so they could forward the observations considered appropriate. On November 18, 2008 the Inter-American Commission stated that “the information presented by the State does not correspond to the report requested and therefore, it has no observations to present.” The representatives did not forward observations. On August 7, 2008 the Court issued an order in which it decided to appoint Judges García Ramírez, Ventura Robles, Franco, Macaulay, Abreu Blondet and the judge ad hoc Pasceri Scaramuzza, to assist to the hearing summoned. The following appeared at this public hearing: a) for the Inter-American Commission: Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro, Agent, delegate; Santiago Cantón, Executive Secretary, delegate, and Juan Pablo Albán A., advisor; b) for the representatives: Pedro Nikken, Carlos Ayala Corao, Oswaldo Quintana, and Moirah Sánchez; and c) for the State: Germán Saltrón Negretti, Human Rights State Agent of the Ministry of the Popular Power for Foreign Relations; Larry Devoe, Deputy Agent; Alejandro Castillo, Director of the Protection of Fundamental Rights of the Public Prosecutors’ Office; Roselyn Daher, Legal Consultant of the National Telecommunications Commission; Carlos Arvelaiz, Juridical Consultant of the Ministry of the Popular Power for Telecommunications and Computer Science; Pedro Maldonado, General Human Rights Director of the Ministry of the Popular Power for Interior Relationships and Justice; and Julián Isaías Rodríguez, Advisor. Similarly, the statements of Carlos Colmenares (proposed by the Commission), Antonio José Monroy (proposed by the representatives), and Andrés Izarra (proposed by the State) were received. 11 Specifically, regarding the proceedings of a criminal nature, it was requested that the competent authorities refer to each of the facts denounced in their reports; the legal classification under which these facts would fall; the people that have appeared as aggrieved or affected parties, or the alleged victims, as well as the current status of the investigations. Finally, the State was asked to forward a complete copy of the Venezuelan Organic Code of Criminal Procedures, of the Organic Law of the Public Prosecutors’ Office, and of the Organic Law of the Ombudsman in force at the time of the facts of the case as well as in the present. 10