4 President, that very day the Secretariat extended the time period given to the State, making the new deadline April 25, 2001. 10. On April 25, 2001, the State presented its observations on the briefs filed by the Inter-American Commission and the representatives of the victims’ next of kin. 11. On April 26, 2001, the President of the Court summoned the representatives of the victims’ next of kin, the Inter-American Commission and the State to a public hearing to be held at the seat of the Court on May 25, 2001, to hear the conclusions regarding reparations in the present case. 12. On May 9, 2001, the victims’ next of kin filed a new brief wherein they informed the Court that they were appointing CEJIL’s Viviana Krsticevic and the IDL’s Degnis Robert Meza Rivera to represent them. 13. On May 25, 2001, the Court held a public hearing on reparations. There appeared: For the State of Peru: Patricio Marcial Rubio Correa, agent; Fernando Rojas, Ambassador of Peru in Costa Rica, and Jorge Lázaro, Minister with the Embassy of Peru in San José, Costa Rica. For the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights: Domingo E. Acevedo, Delegate. For the victims’ next of kin: Viviana Krsticevic; and Degnis Robert Meza Rivera. 14. At the public hearing, the State informed the Court that it was in the process of preparing a “reparations proposal” for the victims’ next of kin, one befitting their circumstances and the events for which the State incurred responsibility. It went on to say that it did not yet have that proposal ready, but would complete it in the coming weeks, whereupon it would submit it to the representatives of the victims’ next of kin and to the Court. 15. On May 25, 2001, the representatives of the victims’ next of kin filed a brief wherein they stated their position on the request the State made during the public hearing seeking an extension on the period for submitting a reparations proposal. They reasoned that “inasmuch as the State would not be able to comply [with the commitment] to come up with a proposal within the time frame specified by the victims’ representatives, and given the serious differences still separating the parties on the question of monetary reparations and measures of satisfaction, any postponement of the reparations decision would be ill-advised.” They therefore asked the Court for a swift finding on the matter of reparations.