11 62. On march 24 and 27, 2006 the common intervener and the State, respectively, presented their observations to the request made by the Commission, in the sense that the Tribunal admitted as testimonial evidence the statements offered under oath by Mrs. Feria Tinta and García Calderón during the proceeding before the Commission (supra para. 58). In this regard, the State indicated that “it did not have any objection” to the mentioned request. The common intervener expressed that Mrs. Avelina García and the common intervener “were willing to […] be called before the Court […] as witness[es].” Likewise, it added that “[i]f the Court […] considers that for procedural economy [it is] preferable […] to admit […] the statements offered […] in the hearing [before] the Commission […], they accept[ed] the decision of the Court according to its best understanding.” 63. On April 26, 2006 the Commission presented a brief, through which it presented to the Tribunal a consultation made by “Mr. Douglas Cassel, legal advisor of the group of victims represented by the original claimant, Sabina Astete,” “regarding the appropriate mechanism to obtain authorization so that said group of victims could communicate directly with the Tribunal or, in its defect, could do so through the Commission and not through the common intervener.” Likewise, the Commission requested that the Court “arbitr[ate] the measures necessary to guarantee that all the [alleged] victims h[ave] access and [that they] were heard according to the proceedings established in the Rules of Procedure of the Court […].” 64. On May 8, 2006 the common intervener presented a brief and its appendixes, through which she referred to the brief presented by the Commission on April 26, 2006 (supra para. 63), in which it presented to the Tribunal a consultation made by Mr. Douglass Cassel. 65. On May 24, 2006 the President of the Court issued a Ruling, through which it requested that Mr. Wilfredo Pedraza, proposed as a witness by the Commission, Messrs. Michael Stephen Bronstein, Edith Tinta, Rosario Falconí Alvarado, Liliana Peralta Saldarriaga, Osilia Ernestina Cruzatt widow of Juárez, Eva Challco, Luis Jiménez, Gustavo Adolfo Chávez Hun, Mercedes Villaverde, Raul Basilio Orihuela, and Jesús Julcarima Antonio, proposed by the common intervener, offer their testimonies through statements offered before a notary public (affidavits). He also requested that Mr. Christopher Birkbeck, proposed as an expert witness by the Commission, and Messrs. José Quiroga and Ana C. Deutsch, proposed as expert witnesses by the common intervener, offer their expert reports through statements offered before notary public (affidavits). Likewise, he requested that, as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case that Messrs. Miriam Rodríguez Peralta, Cesar Mamani Valverde, Alfredo Poccopachi Vallejos, and Madelein Valle Rivera, offer their testimonies through statements given before notary public (affidavits). Similarly, in said Ruling the President summoned the parties to a public hearing that would be held in the city of San Salvador, El Salvador, at the headquarters of the Supreme Court of Justice, on June 26 and 27, 2006, to listen to their final oral arguments on the merits and the possible reparations and costs, as well as the testimonial statements of Mrs. Gaby Balcázar Medina and Julia Peña Castillo, proposed by the Commission, of Messrs. Luis Angel Pérez Zapata and Lastenia Eugenia Caballero Mejía, proposed by the common intervener, of Mr. Omar Antonio Pimentel Calle, proposed by the State, and the expert reports of Messrs. Nizam Peerwani and Thomas Wenzel, proposed by the common intervener. Besides, in this Ruling the President informed the parties that they had time until August 3, 2006 to present their final written arguments in relation to the merits and the possible reparations and costs.