5 23. On September 3, 1998, the Court dismissed the preliminary objections interposed by the State. 24. On February 16, 1999, the Secretariat again asked the State to submit the documentation requested in its note of August 18, 1998, and requested a copy of the brief in which the petitioners presented an extraordinary motion for review of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Council of Military Justice on September 24, 1993, and of the decision issued by the Supreme Court of Peru on October 22, 1993. 25. On February 16 and June 22, 1999, the Commission proposed Mr. Luis Guzmán-Casas as a witness, indicating that he was incarcerated at the “Miguel Castro-Castro” prison at the time, and asked the Court to order that his statement be taken in Peru, in said facility. 26. On April 5, 1999, the State submitted part of the documentation requested by the Secretariat in its note of February 16, 1999. 27. On June 28, 1999, the Court requested authorization from the State to question the witness Luis Guzmán-Casas at the “Miguel Castro-Castro” prison in Peru, where he was incarcerated. To date, the State has not responded to this request. 28. On August 4, 1999, the President summoned the Inter-American Commission and the State to a public hearing on the merits, to be held at the seat of the Court on September 20, for the purpose of taking the statements of the witnesses and the expert proposed by the Commission. Also, the President instructed the Secretariat to inform the parties that they would be able to present their final oral arguments on the merits of the case immediately after such evidence was received. 29. On September 10, 1999, the State informed the Court that it was materially impossible to summon the witness identified as “Naval Investigating Judge identified with code No. BT-10003000,” since his name and surnames were unknown, and because his identity was secret in accordance with Article 15 of Decree Law No. 25.475. 30. On September 20 and 21, 1999, in a public hearing on the merits, the Court took the statements of the witnesses and the expert proposed by the Inter-American Commission, and heard the Commission’s oral arguments. Appearing before the Court were: for the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights: Domingo E. Acevedo, delegate; Viviana Krsticevic, assistant; María Claudia Pulido, assistant; Carmen Herrera, assistant; and Iván Bazán, assistant. As witnesses proposed by the Inter-American Commission: Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides; Gladys Benavides-de-Cantoral; Susana Villarán-de-la-Puente;