15 90. On June 25, 2006 the Court issued a Ruling, through which it “reject[ed] the objection presented by the common intervener […] regarding the participation of Judge Diego García-Sayán in the hearing of the case, for considering it inadmissible” (supra para. 88) and ruled that the processing of the case should continue and the public hearing summoned by the Court should be held. The Court took into consideration that the petition was made the day before the public hearing was held and considered that no evidence that the facts and arguments exposed in the requests constituted any of the causes established in Article 19 of the Statute of the Court was presented. 91. On June 26, 2006 the Judge Diego García-Sayán presented a brief, through which he self-disqualified himself of hearing the present case. In said brief the Judge García-Sayán stated, inter alia, that “he had not intervened in the facts subject to this case, reason for which the Ruling of [the] Court [issued on the previous day] was perfectly adjusted to the stipulations of [the] Statute,” and that “much less, could he have intervened in any way in the ‘policies and decisions of the Peruvian State in relation to the investigation or lack of investigation of the facts.’” Likewise, he informed that he made the decision to self-disqualify himself since “a hearing […] was [going] to be started […] and its normal development could be affected by the unforeseeable behavior of the [common intervener and that t]he precious time of the Court, the parties, and the witnesses should concentrate on the merits and the possibility to be distracted on matters that do not have any relationship with the case and the effective validity of human rights, reason of existence of this Court, must not be left open.” 92. On June 26, 2006 the Court issued a Ruling, through which, despite the fact that it considered that there was no impediment for Judge García-Sayán to hear this case, “it accept[ed] the disqualification presented by the [mentioned] Judge […] to continue hearing […] the case.” (supra para. 91). The aforementioned, in consideration of that stated in Articles 19 of the Rules of Procedure and the Statute of the Court, and from the analysis of the motives presented by Judge Diego GarcíaSayán to disqualify himself from hearing the case. 93. On the 26 and 27 days of June 2006 the public hearing on the merits and possible reparations and costs was held in the city of San Salvador, El Salvador, in which the following appeared: a) for the Inter-American Commission: Florentín Meléndez and Santiago Canton, delegates; Víctor Madrigal, Juan Pablo Alban, Lilly Ching, and Manuela Cuvi, legal advisors; b) for the common intervener: Mónica Feria Tinta, representative, and Zoe Harper, advisor: and c) for the State of Peru: Oscar Manuel Ayzanoa Vigil, Agent. The witnesses and experts proposed by the parties and summoned by the President (supra para. 65 and infra para. 187) also appeared before the Court. Likewise, the Court listened to the final arguments of the Commission, the common intervener, and the State. Similarly, the Court asked the State and the common intervener to present certain explanations and documents along with their corresponding briefs of final arguments. Besides, in said hearing the common intervener presented different documents. On that same day, the common intervener forwarded the appendixes to the written statement of the witnesses Osilia Ernestina Cruzatt widow of Juárez and Luz Liliana Peralta Saldarriaga, as well as appendix No. 2 of the expert report of Mr. José Quiroga (supra para. 65). 94. On June 30, 2006 the Commission presented a brief, through which it informed that “[it did] not [have] observations to present to the statements of Messrs. Rubeth Feria Tinta, Raúl Basilio Gil Orihuela, Ana Deutsch, and José