6 Procedure, decided that the expert witness Arturo Hoyos Phillips should render his expert assessment before a public notary (affidavit). 9. On August 13 and 15, 2010, the representatives and the State forwarded the statements rendered before a public notary. On August 24, 2010, the parties presented their observations to the forwarded statements. 10. The public hearing was held on August 25 and 26, 2010, at the seat of the Court.7 11. On September 30, 2010, the Commission, the representatives and the State presented their final written arguments. On November 3, 2010, the State and the representatives presented their observations to the annexes to the written final briefs presented by the other party, and the Commission stated that “it had no observations to make” by means of a written document received on November 4, 2010. 12. The Tribunal received a brief presented by the Public Interest Clinic of the Universidad Sergio Arboleda (Colombia) as an amicus curiae,8 regarding issues of discrimination, torture, liberty, and prison conditions. III PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 13. Pursuant to the provisions of Article 38(6), together with the provisions of Articles 56(2) and 58, all of the Rules of Procedure, the Court shall analyze the preliminary objections raised by the State, in the understanding that they cannot limit, contradict, or annul the content of the partial acknowledgment of responsibility made by the State (infra Chapter VI). In this manner, the Court proceeds to analyze the arguments presented by the parties. 1. Non-Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies a) Arguments of the Parties i. Arguments of the State 14. The State requested this Tribunal to reject the application submitted by the Commission in limine litis, under the following arguments: the petitioner never made use of the mechanisms available to him under the domestic law to claim his rights to personal liberty, judicial guarantees, and judicial protection; the petitioner did not exhaust the existing domestic remedies to exercise his right to have an investigation conducted regarding the alleged acts of torture committed against him; the Commission incorrectly applied the exception contained in Article 46(2)(b) of the Convention; the State sustains that the non-compliance with the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies existed since its first communications to the 7 At this hearing, the following appeared: a) on behalf of the Inter-American Commission: Mrs. María Silvia Guillén, Commissioner, Delegate; Silvia Serrano and Karla Quintana, Advisors; b) on behalf of the representatives: Mrs. Alejandra Nuño, Gisela De León, Marcela Martino and Adeline Neau, of CEJIL c) and, on behalf of the Republic of Panama: Iana Quadri de Ballard, Agent; Vladimir Franco, Deputy Agent; José Javier Mulino, Ambassador of Panama to Costa Rica; Mariela Vega de Donoso, Human Rights Director; Sophia Lee, Legal Assistant; Yarissa Montenegro, Attorney of the Bureau of Legal Affairs and Treaties; Francisco Rodríguez Robles, Legal Assistant; María de Lourdes Cabeza, Immigration Legal Advisor and Luz Divina Arredondo, Representative of the Embassy of Panama in Costa Rica. Furthermore, the alleged victim, Mr. Jesus Tranquilino Vélez Loor rendered a statement; Mrs. Maria Cristina Gonzalez rendered a testimony and Mrs. Gabriela Rodriguez Pizarro and Mr. Marcelo Flores Torrico rendered their expert assessments. 8 Said brief was submitted and signed by Luis Andrés Fajardo Arturo on July 29, 2010, Director of the Public interest Clinic at the Universidad Sergio Arboleda, and José María del Castillo Abella, Dean of the School of Law of the Universidad Sergio Arboleda.