3 array of legal defenses and other mechanisms are available to defendants in capital cases. The State rejected the submission that the form of capital punishment chosen by the State, namely, hanging, can in and of itself constitute cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment under Article 5 of the Convention. Regarding the reading of warrants of execution prior to the commencement of an appeal, the State asserted that it is required by law to carry out its legal processes, including penalties, in a timely manner, and that there is no legal requirement under either its domestic law or Inter-American human rights law that the State must await the conclusion of proceedings before the Commission. Additionally, the State asserted that the conditions of imprisonment of the alleged victims do not violate Article 5 of the Convention. Finally the State observed that its system of capital punishment is based upon the freely expressed democratic wishes of its population. II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 6. The application of the Commission was notified to the State on August 21, 2006,3 and to the representatives on August 22, 2006. In addition to the presentation of the principal briefs forwarded by the parties (supra paras. 1, 4 and 5), on February 21, 2007 the Commission and the representatives submitted written briefs on the preliminary objection presented by the State (supra, para. 5). Furthermore, on April 4, 2007, the representatives submitted an additional written pleading, pursuant to Article 39 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, to which the Commission and the State submitted their respective observations on April 25, 2007. 7. On May 29, 2007, the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”) ordered the submission of sworn declarations (affidavits) of five witnesses and five expert witnesses proposed by the Commission, the representatives, and the State, to which the parties were given the opportunity to submit their respective observations.4 Furthermore, due to the particular circumstances of this case, the President convened the Inter-American Commission, the representatives, and the State to a public hearing in order to receive the declarations of two witnesses and one expert witness, as well as the final arguments of the parties regarding the preliminary objection and possible merits, reparations and costs. Consequently, the Commission and the representatives took notice of the President’s decision not to call Mr. Adrian King as an expert witness, and requested the President to consider summoning him to testify instead as a witness. Similarly, the State requested the substitution of one of the witnesses summoned by the President. In consideration of the observations of all parties regarding such issues, on June 14, 2007 the President decided in favor of both requests.5 The public hearing in this case was held on July 11, 2007, during the Court’s seventy-sixth regular period of sessions.6 8. On August 13, 2007, the parties submitted their respective final written arguments. 3 When the application was notified to the State, the Court informed it of its right to designate an ad hoc Judge to participate in this case. On April 18, 2007 the State requested “an invitation from the President of the Court to appoint an ad hoc judge” due to “the recent and untimely demise of the judge of Barbadian nationality sitting on the Inter-American Court”. On May 11, 2007, the Court decided not to grant the State’s request because, pursuant to Article 10(4) of the Court’s Statute, the right to appoint an ad hoc Judge in the present case had relinquished as of September 21, 2006. 4 Order issued by the President of the Inter-American Court on May 29, 2007. 5 Order issued by the President of the Inter-American Court on June 14, 2007. 6 The following were present at this hearing: (a) for the Inter-American Commission: Clare Roberts, Commissioner, as delegate; Santiago A. Canton, Executive Secretary, as delegate, and Elizabeth Abi-Mershed and Manuela Cuvi Rodríguez, as advisers; (b) for the representatives: Keir Starmer, Saul Lehrfreund, Parvais Jabbar, Douglas Mendes, Ruth Brander, and Alison Gerry, from the law firm of Simons Muirhead & Burton, and (c) for the State: Jennifer Edwards, agent; David S. Berry, deputy agent, and Nicole Thompson.