4 II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 7. The application of the Commission was notified to the State on December 27, 20063 and to the representative on December 26, 2006. During the proceedings before this Court, in addition to the main briefs submitted by the parties (supra paras. 1, 4, and 5), the President of the Court4 (hereinafter “the President”) ordered the incorporation of sworn declarations (affidavits) of some witnesses and five expert witnesses proposed by the Commission, the representative, and the State. The parties were given the opportunity to submit comments on these statements and declarations. Finally, the President convened the parties to a public hearing to receive the declarations of two alleged victims proposed by the Commission and the representative, two witnesses proposed by the State and an expert witness proposed by the representative, as well as the parties’ final oral arguments regarding the preliminary objection, the merits, and the possible reparations and costs. The public hearing in the instant case was held on January 31 and February 1, 2008 during the seventy-eighth regular session of the Court in the city of San José, Costa Rica.5 8. On January 22, 2008, the Court received an amicus curiae brief filed by the International Commission of Jurists and the Due Process of Law Foundation. 9. On March 3, 2008, March 4, 2008, and March 10, 2008, the State, the representative, and the Commission submitted, respectively, their final written arguments. 10. On June 25, 2008, the State and the representative were requested to submit specific evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the case,6 which was submitted on July 1, 2008, by the representative, and on July 4, 2008, by the State. III EVIDENCE 11. Based on the provisions of Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as the Court’s prior decisions regarding evidence and its assessment,7 the Court 3 On December 22, 2006, the State was informed of the right to appoint a judge ad hoc for the instant case. On January 19, 2007, the State requested an extension to make the appointment. A nonrenewable extension was granted until February 5, 2007. On February 5, 2007, the Inter-American Commission stated that “the appointment of a judge ad hoc is only viable when a state files a petition against another state.” On March 27, 2007, 44 days after the expiration of the extension, the State appointed Mr. Juan Vicente Ardilla Peñuela as judge ad hoc. On March 30, 2007, the Inter-American Commission requested the Court to consider that the State “ha[d] waived its right to appoint a judge ad hoc.” The Court rejected the appointment made by the State for having been made beyond the scheduled term. 4 Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of November 29, 2007. 5 The hearing was attended by: a) for the Inter-American Commission: Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro, Commissioner; Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, Deputy Secretary; Débora Benchoam and Manuela Cuvi Rodríguez, legal advisers; b) on behalf of the alleged victims: Héctor Faúndez Ledesma; and c) for the State: Mayerling Rojas Villasmil, Agent; Enrique Sánchez, Deputy Agent; Gonzalo González Vizcaya, Jesús Cabrera and Herly Peña Escalona. 6 The Court requested a copy of the “appeal for annulment” which, according to the representative, had been lodged on December 4, 2003 by Luisa Estella Morales, and a copy of the order of November 1, 2005, delivered by the Sala Político Administrativa del Tribunal Supremo de Justicia [Chamber for Political and Administrative Matters of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice], whereby, according to the representative, the motion was adjudged.