7 before the Court: a) For the Inter-American Commission: Florentín Meléndez, delegate; Víctor Madrigal, Counsel; Pedro E. Díaz-Romero, Counsel; Manuela CuviRodríguez, Counsel; b) For the representatives: Carolina Loayza-Tamayo; and c) For the State: Felipe Villavicencio-Terreros, Agent; Julio César Cruz-Cahuata, Counsel; and César Azabache-Caracciolo, Counsel. Moreover, Wilson García-Asto and Pedro RamírezRojas appeared as witnesses proposed by the Inter-American Commission. During the public hearing, the State produced various documents related to the proceedings brought against Wilson García-Asto before the domestic courts. 34. On May 17, 2005, the State filed its observations on the expert opinions of Mario Pablo Rodríguez-Hurtado and José Rodríguez-Robinson. Peru did not file any observations on the affidavit of Carlos Rivera-Paz (supra paras. 26 and 28). 35. On June 29, 2005, the Secretariat, on instructions from the President, informed the State that during the public hearing held in the instant case (supra para. 33), Judge Diego García-Sayán, a Peruvian national, became acquainted with certain circumstances that led him to disqualify himself from the case. Based on the foregoing, during the LXVII Regular Session of the Court, Judge García-Sayán filed a selfdisqualification statement to hear the above-mentioned case with the President of the Court, under Articles 19 of the Statute of the Court and 19(2) of the Rules of Procedure. The President accepted the self-disqualification of Judge García-Sayán. Therefore, the State was notified that, according to Article 18 of the Rules of Procedure and the usual practice of the Court regarding Article 10(3) of its Statute, it was entitled to appoint a Judge ad hoc to hear the instant case. 36. On June 27, 28, and 30, 2005 the representatives, the Commission, and the State submitted their closing written arguments. The alleged victims’ representatives submitted several documents as appendixes to their closing written arguments (infra para. 89). 37. On July 13, 2005, the Secretariat, on instructions from the President, requested the State, as evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the case, pursuant to Article 45 of the Rules of Procedure, to furnish the following documents: the records of the latest proceedings conducted in the case against Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas which had not been forwarded together with the brief of April 12, 2005 (supra para. 26), and the Code of Criminal Procedure in force at the time the events in the instant case took place. Moreover, the request filed on April 28, 2005 requiring the State to submit the documentary evidence detailed by the Inter-American Commission in the brief of April 27, 2005, was reiterated (supra para. 29). Furthermore, on instructions from the President and in compliance with Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the appendixes attached to the observations made by the State on the expert opinions of Mario Pablo Rodríguez-Hurtado and José Daniel Rodríguez-Robinson given in the case of De La Cruz Flores, as proposed by the State in the instant case, were incorporated into the body of evidence of the instant case. Lastly, that same day, the Secretariat, on instructions from the President, requested the representatives to submit the records of the latest proceedings conducted in the case instituted against Urcesino RamírezRojas which might be in their possession. 38. On August 15, 2005, the representatives, in compliance with the request of the President of July 13, 2005, forwarded, as evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the