9. Public hearing. – On December 6, 2018, the President of the Court issued an order summoning the State, the representative and the Inter-American Commission to a public hearing to receive their allegations and final observations regarding the preliminary objections and subsequent merits, reparations and costs, as well as the statements of the alleged victim and an expert witness proposed by the Inter-American Commission. The public hearing was held on February 6, 2019, during the 129th period of regular sessions of the Court, held at its seat. The alleged victim, Jorge Enrique Rosadio Villavicencio, gave his statement and the expert witness, Hernán Víctor Gullco, gave his expert opinion during the hearing. 10. Evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case. – The Registrar’s note of January 30, 2019, requested the State and the representative to provide specific evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case. The State submitted part of the evidence requested on February 4, 2019. 8 The representative submitted another part of the evidence requested, some documents not requested by the Court,9 as well as its observations on the evidence submitted by the State, on February 13, 2019. The Court asked the State and the Commission to present their observations on the documents submitted by the representative. 11. Observations and final written arguments. – On February 27, 2019, the Commission submitted its final written arguments. On March 6, 2019, the State and the representative submitted their corresponding final written arguments.10 12. Deliberation of the case. – The Court began the deliberation of this judgment on October 8, 2019, and it ended on October 14, 2019. III JURISDICTION 13. The Inter-American Court has jurisdiction to hear the instant case pursuant to Article 62(3) of the Convention, as Peru has been a State Party to the American Convention since July 28, 1978, and it recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. IV PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 14. In its answering brief the State filed two preliminary objections regarding: (a) lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies, and (b) the objection of fourth instance. In addition, it submitted an “observation” regarding the alleged inclusion of Article 25 of the American Convention, which will be examined as a preliminary objection. The State did not submit: (i) “the orders for preventive detention issued in the ordinal criminal and military criminal jurisdictions for Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio”; (ii) a copy of “the publication of Supreme Decrees 09 and 049 in the ‘El Peruano’ Official Newspaper”; (iii) the “notification of the charges against Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio before the Inspectorate of the Leoncio Prado Detachment, in the administrative disciplinary proceedings”; (iv) the “documentation submitted by the State during the proceedings before the Inter-American Commission which, as per the answering brief, evidenced the notification of the accusation made by Military Prosecutor’s Office on October 17, 1995, before the Permanent War Council of the Fifth Judicial Military Region against Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio”; (v) the “notification to Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio that the hearing of the Permanent War Council would be held on November 29, 1996, and proof that he had a private or ex officio legal counsel before said notification”; or (vi) the “notification to Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio that the hearing would be held on December 15, 1997, before the Permanent War Council of the Sixth Judicial Military Area.” 9 These documents will not be taken into consideration because they are time-barred. 10 On March 25, 2019, the alleged victim’s representative submitted “an exceptional and extraordinary communication” regarding the case. That brief is time-barred; therefore, it will not be taken into account by the Court. 8 6