7 31. Percy Catacora Santisteban and Jorge Chávez Lobatón were presented by the Peruvian State to declare as experts. However, on May 24, 1999, the Court adopted a decision resolving that Percy Catacora Santisteban would declare as a witness. 32. On July 13, 1999, within the established period, the Commission submitted its written summing up. 33. On September 9, 1999, the State submitted its summing up. As this presentation was manifestly time-barred (the time limit expired on July 11, 1999), the Court abstained from considering it. 34. On August 12, 1999, the ad hoc Judge for the case, José Alberto Bustamante Belaúnde, withdrew from this appointment “due to the irreversible incompatibility that [he found] between the normal, fluid and irrecusable exercise of this appointment and [his] publicly known position with regard to the decision of the Peruvian Government to withdraw from the contentious jurisdiction of the Court” 1,2. IV PROVISIONAL MEASURES ADOPTED IN THE CASE 35. On July 17, 1997, prior to presenting the application, the Inter-American Commission submitted to the Court a request for the adoption of provisional measures in the instant case, invoking Article 63.2 of the Convention and Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure. In this document, the Commission requests the Court that it [should] order the Illustrious Government of Peru to comply with the judgment of the Public Law Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima in the habeas corpus action, without prejudice to the investigation being continued before the competent judicial organ in order to determine any criminal responsibility on the part of Gustavo Cesti Hurtado. 36. In a decision issued on July 29, 1997, the President requested the State to adopt “without delay, any measures [that may be] necessary to ensure the physical, mental and moral safety of Gustavo Cesti Hurtado, so that any provisional measures that the Court might take, if appropriate, [may] have the relevant effects”. 37. On September 11, 1997, the Court ratified the resolution of its President of July 29, 1997, based on the following consideration, among others [t]hat the facts and circumstances raised by the Commission imply that there is a direct link between the Commission’s request for Gustavo Cesti Hurtado’s release, in compliance with the 1. In a note dated July 16, 1999, received by the Secretariat of the Court on July 27, 1999, the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States (OAS) informed the Court that, on July 9, 1999, Peru had deposited an instrument in which it declared that “according to the American Convention on Human Rights, the Republic of Peru withdraws[drew] the declaration that the Peruvian Government had at one time made, recognizing the optional clause of submission to the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights”. Moreover, the Court received information verifying declarations made by the ad hoc Judge in the case, José Alberto Bustamante Belaúnde, in support of the position adopted by Peru. 2. Heriberto Manuel Benítez Rivas, acting as amicus curiae, presented a document on November 23, 1998. The same day, the Center for Legal and Social Studies (CELS) and the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL), acting as amici curiae, presented a document to the Court.