6 25. On January 28, 1997, the Commission submitted its observations and affirmed that, since the State had recognized its international responsibility with regard to “its duty to 'guarantee' (prevent, investigate and punish)”, this point was not in dispute and, it was necessary to proceed to the reparations stage in that regard. It also requested clarification as to whether the State had withdrawn the preliminary objection that it had filed. 26. In a note of January 28, 1997, the Court requested the State to forward its observations to the Commission's communication (supra 25) as soon as possible. On April 7, 1997, the Commission again requested the Court to clarify whether the State had withdrawn the preliminary objection that it had filed. On April 16, 1997, the State declared that it had recognized “its international responsibility and, therefore, it should be understood that the preliminary objected that it had filed was withdrawn”. In an Order of April 16, 1997, the Court deemed “the preliminary objection lodged by the State of Guatemala to have been withdrawn [and ordered] to continue the processing of the merits of the case.” 27. In an Order of February 5, 1997, the Court considered that “[f]rom its examination of Guatemalan briefs, [the Court cannot] conclude that the events indicated in the petition have been accepted and, therefore, the case must continue to be heard.” Therefore, the Court decided: 1. To take note of the briefs presented by the Government of the Republic of Guatemala on January 6 and 20, 1997. 2. To continue with the processing of the case. 28. On March 6, 1998, the Commission presented the names of the witnesses and the expert witness who would declare before the Court. Likewise, it requested that “additional evidence be admitted, in accordance with Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court [because …], when the application in the present case was filed, [there was] a serious impediment to the presentation of this documentary and testimonial evidence”. In this brief, the Commission requested that Ulises Noé Anzueto, Marco A. Carías Monzón, Salvador Rubio, Mario E. Ovando, Sergio V. Orozco Orozco, Edwin M. Lemus Vásquez, Héctor René Pérez, Mary Granfield, Mario Sosa Orellana, Michael Charney, Edmund Mullet and Marylin McAfee should be eliminated from the list of witnesses; and that, should any of the other witnesses be unable to appear to give their testimony, they should be substituted by others. Furthermore, it requested that Otoniel de la Roca Mendoza, Julio Cintrón Gálvez, Acisclo Valladares, Alberto Gómez, Jesús Efraín Aguirre Loarca (known as Major Aguirre), Gregorio Ávila, José Víctor Cordero Cardona and Ismael Salvatierra Arroyo should be called as new witnesses. It also requested that documentation consisting of two declarations sworn before a Notary on February 22, 1998, by Pedro Tartón Jutzuy and Otoniel de la Roca Mendoza, should be admitted as new evidence. 29. In an Order of April 2, 1998, the President invited the Inter-American Commission and the State to a public hearing to be held at the Court, commencing on June 16, 1998, in order to receive the declarations of the witnesses and the expert witnesses proposed by the Commission. The parties were informed that they could present their final oral arguments on the merits of the case immediately after this evidence had been received.