13 the objection set out in its brief of December 4 with regard to the presentation of new evidence, based on the provisions of Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure, and stated that some of the documents presented were certifications made by one of the witnesses, who had not appeared at the public hearings to which he had been summoned 59. On December 21, 1998, the Commission sent two press cuttings on declarations by agents of the State, “in which it was indicated that Mrs. Harbury had requested Guatemala to compensate her with a considerable sum of money.” 60. On March 24, 1999, the Commission requested the admission as supervening evidence of the final report of the Commission for the Historical Clarification of the human rights violations and violent acts that have caused suffering to the Guatemalan People (hereinafter “the Commission for Historical Clarification”), entitled “Guatemala, Memory of Silence” and presented a copy of illustrative case No. 81 in this report. 61. On May 20, 1999, the Commission provided information about an incident involving José León Bámaca Hernández, the alleged victim's father. 62. On August 20, 1999, the Present granted a period of one month, from reception of the transcripts of the public hearings held in this case, for presentation of the final arguments. On August 27 that year, the Commission requested, on the one hand, an extension of one more month for the presentation of its final arguments and, on the other, that the Court should determine the validity of the evidence offered by the State after the statutory time limit had elapsed, with a view to preparing those arguments. On August 30, 1999, the President granted the extension requested until the following October 22. On October 6, 1999, the President indicated that “the Court will evaluate the evidence presented by the parties after the statutory time limit had elapsed when deliberating and adopting the judgment on the merits of this case.” 63. On October 22, 1999, the Commission and the State presented their final arguments in the case. 64. On June 27, 2000, the International Commission of Jurists presented an amicus curiae on the right to the truth of the families of victims of forced disappearance. V URGENT AND PROVISIONAL MEASURES 65. On June 24, 1998, the Inter-American Commission requested the Court to adopt provisional measures, under the provisions of Article 63(2) of the American Convention and Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure, in favor of Santiago Cabrera López, who had provided testimony in the public hearing on the merits of the case (supra 35). As grounds for its request, it informed the Court that Cabrera gave testimony [before the Inter-American Court] on facts that clearly involved the responsibility of specific State agents in human rights violations. The State agents involved in these facts have not been prosecuted and are not in prison. Also, they did not appear before the Court although they had been summoned by this body. This