7 evidence, by holding a hearing, in order to receive Mr. Neptune’s testimony, as well as any information the parties could provide on several aspects in dispute, 28 and asked for documentation and information to be forwarded.29 At the request of the representative, on January 23, 2008, the then President decided to summon Mario Joseph to declare at this hearing to provide information. On January 30, 2008, the Court held the said public hearing.30 As ordered by the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”) during the public hearing, on February 15, 2008, the Secretariat asked the parties to answer some questions in accordance with Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure.31 The replies of the State, the representative, and the Commission were received on February 22, 2008.32 On March 14, 2008, on the instructions of the President, the Secretariat informed the parties that, in application of Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure, it would incorporate certain probative elements into the case file 33 with regard to which the parties were allowed to submit their observations. 28 The purpose of the hearing was to receive precise, detailed information about the following: (a) The content, effects and supposedly final nature of a April 13, 2007, decision of the Gonaïves Court of Appeal, issued in the context of the criminal proceedings against Mr. Neptune; his current juridical situation, as well as any fact that has occurred in these proceedings following the submission of the application by the Inter-American Commission; (b) The juridical nature, procedure and possible consequences of an eventual proceeding before the High Court of Justice, the applicable laws and the possible sanctions; whether such a hearing had already been initiated or was about to begin in relation to Mr. Neptune, and its possible effects vis-à-vis the criminal proceedings against him; and (c) The current status of any judicial or administrative investigation or any other proceedings of any nature filed in relation to the facts of the instant case. 29 The parties were asked to forward, by January 10, 2008, at the latest, copies of the documents relating to the domestic investigation and judicial proceedings; in particular the complete official text of the judgment of April 13, 2007, of the Gonaïves Court of Appeal; copies of the laws and regulations applied and applicable to this case; in particular the Code of Criminal Investigation (Code d’instruction criminelle), the Penal Code and the Constitution of the Republic of Haiti. Within the allotted time, the representatives forward the unofficial text of the Court of Appeal’s ruling and the Commission forwarded the requested copies of the Codes and the Constitution. On January 29, 2008, the State submitted a copy of the official manuscript text of the decision of the Gonaïves Court of Appeal of April 13, 2007, together with the text of the closing order (Ordonnance de clôture) of September 14, 2005, issued by the Court of First Instance of Saint-Marc. 30 The following persons were present at the hearing: Yvon Neptune, alleged victim and deponent; Mario Joseph, informative deponent; for the Inter-American Commission: Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, Deputy Executive Secretary, and Juan Pablo Alban, adviser; for the representatives of the alleged victim: Brian Concannon Jr. and Pooja Bhatia, assistant; and for the State, Fortuné Dorléan, Director of Legal Affairs of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Haiti, and Jean-Frédérique Benèche, member of the Cabinet of the Minister of Justice of Haiti. 31 The questions were as follows: - If a court decision has not been notified, can it be considered notified under Haitian law if one of the parties uses it or relies on it during legal proceedings? - Based on the testimony provided by the State during the hearing, what guarantees can the State give to ensure that there will be no criminal or other proceedings against Mr. Neptune? 32 Since the representative submitted an affidavit by Mario Joseph, answering the said questions, on the instructions of the President, the State and the Commission were advised that they could submit observations by March 7, 2008, at the latest. The State presented observations and, after an extension had been granted, the Commission indicated that it had no observations to make in this regard. 33 The parties were advised that, by March 26, 2007, at the latest, they should forward any observations they deemed pertinent concerning the incorporation into the file of the following documents: Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Annual Report 2006, OAS/Ser.L/V/II.127, March 3, 2007, Chapter IV – Haiti; InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights, Annual Report 2005, OAS/Ser.L/V/II.124, February 27, 2006, Chapter IV – Haiti; United Nations, Economic and Social Council. Report on the situation of human rights in Haiti presented by the independent expert, Adama Dieng, E/CN.4/2001/106, 30 January 2001; United Nations, Economic and Social Council. Report on the situation of human rights in Haiti presented by the independent expert, Louis Joinet, E/CN.4/2004/108, 21 January 2004; United Nations, Economic and Social Council. Report on the situation of human rights in Haiti presented by the independent expert, Louis Joinet. E/CN.4/2006/115, 26 January 2006;