6 28. On March 23, 2006, the Commission informed that it would make no comment on the affidavits and expert witness’ testimony submitted by the representatives. 29. On March 27, 2006, the representatives informed that Mrs. De Belén Areco would not be able to travel to Brazil to render testimony at the public hearing due to health reasons. 30. On March 30, 2006, the Court held a public hearing to receive testimonies and expert witness’ reports as proposed by the representatives (supra para. 24), and heard the arguments on the merits and possible reparations and costs of the Commission, the representatives and the State. There appeared before the Court: a) for the Inter-American Commission: Florentin Meléndez and Santiago Cantón, as delegates; and Mr. Víctor Madrigal and Mrs. Manuela Cuvi, as legal counsel; b) for the representatives: Mrs. Viviana Krsticevic, Liliana Tojo and Julieta Di Corleto, attorneys-at-law for CEJIL, and Mr. Orlando Castillo, attorney-at-law for SERPAJ PY; and c) for the State: Ambassador Mario Sandoval and Counselor Francisco Barreiro, as advisors, and Federico Antúnez-Barrios, as agent. Furthermore, Sebastián VargasAreco1 appeared in the capacity as witness for the representatives in lieu of Mrs. De Belén Areco (supra para. 29) and expert witness Carlos Portillo, also proposed by the representatives. At said public hearing, the State restated its acquiescence in the application filed by the Commission and added that “in view of the special circumstances of the instant case[,] the additional claims filed by the Commission will not be challenged.” 31. During the meeting prior to the public hearing, the representatives submitted the affidavit with the testimony rendered by Mrs. De Belén Areco-Vargas. 32. On May 19, 2006, after a new term was granted, the State and the representatives, respectively, filed their final written arguments; so did the Commission on May 22, 2006. 33. On June 22, 2006, the State informed that on June 21, 2006, “the State of Paraguay made a Public Acknowledgment of International Liability at the headquarters of the National Chancery,” for the purposes of the instant case. On July 25, 2006, the State submitted additional information regarding said public acknowledgment. V PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS 34. Now, the Court will proceed to determine: (a) the legal consequences of the “amended application” filed by the Commission, and (b) the scope of the acknowledgment of international liability made by the State. Given the fact that Mrs. De Belén Areco was unable to travel to render testimony at the public hearing, the representatives proposed Mr. Sebastián Vargas-Areco, son of Mrs. De Belén Areco and brother of the alleged victim, as witness. During the meeting prior to the public hearing, held on March 29, 2006, the State and the Commission agreed on the substitution of said witness 1