proposed by the representatives, as well as an expert proposed by the Commission, to testify at the public hearing.7 The public hearing took place on March 10, 2020, during the 134th regular session that the Court held at its seat in San José.8 During the hearing, the State acknowledged responsibility for the violations identified by the Commission in its Merits Report. Additionally, during the hearing, the judges of the Court requested certain information and explanations from the parties and the Commission. 10. Final written arguments and observations. In view of Orders of the Court 1/20 of March 17, 20209 and 2/20 of April 16, 2020,10 whereby it was decided to suspend the calculation of all deadlines due to the health emergency caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the deadline for submitting final arguments was extended until June 18, 2020. Thus, on April 21 and June 18, 2020, the representatives and the State presented, respectively, their final written arguments, along with several annexes. The Commission submitted its final written observations on May 5, 2020. On June 9, 2020, the representatives amended and expanded their final arguments. 11. Useful information and evidence. At the public hearing, the Court asked the State to present certain documentation as evidence to facilitate adjudication.11 The State presented part of this documentation along with its final arguments. The Court requested the missing documentation on June 24, 2020, which the State presented in writing on July 8, 2020. 12. Observations on useful information and evidence. On July 2, 2020, the representatives presented their observations on the annexes submitted by the State together with the final written arguments. On July 23, 2020, the representatives presented observations on the evidence requested by the Court and presented by the State on July 8, 2020. The Commission did not submit observations. 13. Deliberation of this case. The Court deliberated on this judgment in a virtual session on August 27 and 31, 2020.12 Cf. Case of Acosta Martínez et al. v. Argentina. Call to hearing. Order of the President of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of February 10, 2020. Available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/acosta_martinez_10_02_2020.pdf. 7 The following people appeared at the hearing: This hearing was attended by: a) on behalf of the InterAmerican Commission: Paulo Abrão, then Executive Secretary, and Jorge H. Meza Flores, advisor; b) on behalf of the representatives of the alleged victims: Ángel Acosta Martínez, alleged victim, and Myriam Carsen, lawyer and c) on behalf of the State of Argentina: Alberto Javier Salgado, Director of International Litigation in Human Rights Matters of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Religion of the Nation; Andrea Viviana Pochak, Undersecretary of Protection and International Liaison on Human Rights of the Secretariat for Human Rights of the Nation, and Gonzalo Bueno, Legal Advisor of the Litigation Department on International on Human Rights of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Religion of the Nation. 8 9 Available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/comunicados/cp_18_2020.pdf 10 Available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/comunicados/cp_28_2020.pdf The following were requested: A copy of the detainee logbook from the station where Mr. José Delfín Acosta Martínez was sent, a copy of the Police Edict on Drunkenness; a copy of the Regulation of Procedures for Misdemeanor Offenses; and a copy of the Organic Law of the Federal Police, with all of them being the versions that were in force at the time of the facts of the case. Also requested were the current regulations in force in the City of Buenos Aires—both in terms of substance and procedure—governing detentions without a court order and the powers of the Federal Police regarding misdemeanor offenses, the opinion of PROCUVIN, and the technical report of the General Investigations Criminal Investigation Support Office that served as the basis for this order. 11 Due to the exceptional circumstances brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic, this judgment was deliberated and approved during the 136th regular sessions, which was held remotely, using technological means, in keeping with the provisions of the Rules of Procedure of the Court. 12 6