5 State declared that it had never violated the personal integrity of the alleged victim, who enjoyed better conditions that other prisoners in Peru, and that Gustavo Cesti Hurtado was judged under military jurisdiction because the crimes for which he was found guilty were planned and executed in military installations, together with other officers on active service, resulting in the misappropriation of monies belonging to the military establishment. Moreover, the State declared that, in the case of Gustavo Cesti Hurtado, the right to a fair trial and due process, and the rights to privacy and to property had been respected. Lastly, the State declared that, in the judgments pronounced in cases against Peru, the Court had attacked the sovereignty of the country and that the application presented by the Commission in this case rendered its system of laws invalid and attempted to destabilize its constitutional institutions. 21. The public hearing on preliminary objections was held at the seat of the Court on November 24, 1998. During the hearing, the expert witnesses, Samuel Abad Yupanqui and Valentín Paniagua Corazao, gave their reports (infra 62). Moreover, subsequent to the hearing, the Commission presented seven documents on the merits of the case (infra 54). 22. On November 27, 1998, the State presented copies of 29 documents on the merits of the case (infra 46). 23. On December 9, 1998, the Court requested the State to submit an authenticated copy of a judgment of the Peruvian Constitutional Court on June 19, 1998, regarding a petition for habeas corpus presented by Carlos Alfredo Villalba Zapata, and also of a report containing “a detailed description of all the measures taken by the State to comply with the provisions of the said judgment and their effects in the domestic sphere”. The Court requested these documents because it considered that they would be useful for the examination of the instant case. On January 11, 1999, Peru presented an authenticated copy of the judgment, but did not present the respective report. On January 18, 1999, the State forwarded some observations on the aforementioned judgment to the Court. 24. On December 10, 1998, David Pezúa Vivanco presented his resignation as ad hoc Judge in this case to the Court, because it was incompatible with his position as Executive Secretary of the Executive Committee of the Peruvian Judiciary. In this regard, in a plenary decision on January 19, 1999, the Court resolved 1. [t]o take note of the resignation of David Pezúa Vivanco from his appointment as ad hoc Judge in the instant case [; and] 2. [t]o continue hearing the case with its actual composition. 25. The same day, the Commission submitted its observations on the 29 documents that the State had presented on November 27, 1998, to the Court (supra 22). 26. On January 27, 1999, the State requested the Court to “rule that the Government of Peru should proceed to appoint a new ad-hoc Judge”. On January 29, 1999, the Court informed Peru that it should make this appointment within the following 30 days. On March 3, 1999, the State appointed José Alberto Bustamante Belaúnde as ad hoc Judge.