13. Public hearing on possible merits, reparations and costs. In an order dated July 12, 2017, the President of the Court 13 requested the statements rendered by affidavit of three alleged victims offered by SIPDH, four offered by AIDEF and one offered by Factum Consorcio; one witness offered by SIPDH, seven offered by AIDEF and one offered by Factum Consorcio; three declarants for information purposes offered by the State and three expert witnesses offered by SIPDH, four offered by AIDEF and one offered by Factum Consorcio..14 Likewise, the President decided to call the State, the common interveners and the Commission to a public hearing during the Court’s 119th regular session at its seat in San José, Costa Rica, on August 28, 2017. 14. Request for clarification and/or reconsideration. In a brief dated July 18, 2017, the common intervenor SIPDH requested clarification, or failing that, partial appeal of the decision of the President of the Court of July 12, 2017, regarding the grounds for the denial of the testimony of a declarant. In a brief dated July 28, 2017, the State submitted its observations on the request for clarification and partial appeal of the common intervener. In a ruling of August 21, 2017, 15 the Court dismissed the motion for reconsideration filed by the common intervenor SIPDH. 15. Helpful Consorcio and requested was the State and 2018. evidence. On September 18, 2017, the Court asked the State, Factum SIPDH to submit certain evidence to facilitate adjudication. The information forwarded on September 27 and 28, 2017. On March 5, 2018, the Court asked SIPDH to provide helpful evidence, which the State submitted on March 8, 16. Final written arguments and observations. In their briefs of September 28, 2017, the common interveners and the Commission submitted their final arguments and observations, respectively. Factum Consorcio submitted annexes together with its brief of final arguments. Finally, in a brief dated November 28, 2017 the State submitted its final arguments and attached several annexes. Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice; xvii) the brief of September 1, 2015 of José Tomás Guevara, concerning the alleged failure by the State to apply the Court’s jurisprudence and Rules of Procedure; xviii) the brief of September 1, 2015 of José Tomás Guevara on the supposed illegality of the sentences imposed on the alleged victims; xix) the brief of September 1, 2015, of José Tomás Guevara, on the alleged violation of the right to consular assistance; xx) the second brief of August 31, 2015 of José Tomás Guevara: on the violation of the following Articles: 306, 316, 319, 321, 322, 324 and 376 to 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 41 of the Constitution and 8(1) of the American Convention; and xxi) the third brief of August 31, 2015 of José Tomás Guevara discussed the failure to apply double judicial conformity and the alleged incompatibility of Law 7398 with Article 5(6) of the Convention and with Article 51 of the Criminal Code. 13 Cf. Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica. Call to a hearing. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court, July 12, 2017. Available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/amrhein_12_07_17.pdf 14 The persons called to testify before a notary public were: a) petitioners proposed by SIPDH: i) Damas Vega Atencio, ii) Miguel Ángel Mora Calvo, and iii) Carlos Osborne Escalante; b) proposed by Factum Consorcio: iv) Jorge Martínez Meléndez; c) proposed by the Inter-American Defenders: v) Guillermo Rodríguez Silva; vi) Martín Rojas Hernández, vii) Manuel Hernández Quesada, and viii) Rafael Antonio Rojas Madrigal. d) witness proposed by SIPDH: i) Roger Víquez Guiraud; e) witnesses proposed by Factum Consorcio, ii) José Martínez Meléndez; f) witness proposed by the Inter-American Defenders, iii) Álvaro Chambers Torres, iv) Antonio Sandoval Mendoza, v) Carlos Alberto Céspedes León, vi) Rosaura Chinchilla Calderón, vii) Eric Alfredo Chirino Sanchez, viii) Roy Murillo Rodríguez, ix) Marta Iris Muñoz Cascante; g) Declarants for information purposes proposed by the State: i) Daniel González Álvarez, ii) Edwin Jiménez González, and iii) Elías Carranza; h) expert witnesses proposed by le Commission: i) Alberto Bovino, and ii) Juan Pablo Gomara; i) expert witnesses proposed by SIPDH: iii) Walter Antillón; j) expert witnesses proposed by Adrián Martínez Blanco: iv) John Pablo Hernández Rojas, and v) Giselle Chacón Araya; k) expert witnesses proposed by AIDEF: vi) José Joaquín Ureña Chamberzar, and vii)Juan Gerardo Ugalde Lobo; and l) expert witnesses proposed by the State: viii) Carlos Alberto Beraldi. 15 Cf. Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica. Call to a Hearing. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 21, 2017. Available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/amrhein_21_08_17.pdf. 10