7 30. On May 15, 1998, the Commission advised that the witness, Otoniel de la Roca Mendoza, was in the United States of America arranging his migratory status, and that “[i]f, for legal reasons, he was unable to travel to San José, Costa Rica, for the public hearing, the Commission [would], at the appropriate time, request that a delegation of the Court be commissioned to take his declaration in the United States”, or that the exhibition of a videotape with his testimony should be authorized. 31. On June 11, 1998, the Commission reiterated the possibility that the witness, de la Roca Mendoza, might not be able to attend the public hearing on the merits of the case, and enclosed a copy of a videotape containing the testimony that this witness had provided before the Commission on February 23, 1998. On April 25, 1998, the Commission also forwarded a copy of the report of the Inter-Diocesan Recovery of the Historical Memory Project prepared by the Archbishop of Guatemala's Human Rights Office (hereinafter “the REMHI Report”), and requested that it should be considered supervening evidence in the case. The same day, the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”), following the Court's instructions, forwarded these documents to the State and granted it until June 15, 1998, to present its observations with regard to their admission as evidence. When this period had expired, the State indicated that the videotape with the declaration of de la Roca Mendoza should not be shown, because it would be against the provisions of Articles 41 and 47 of the Rules of Procedure. With regard to the REMHI Report, it indicated that the State “did not object to its incorporation as evidence in this proceeding [...] provided that it is a complete, original version”. On June 16, 1998, the Court issued an Order rejecting the Commission's request to show the videotape with the declaration of Otoniel de la Roca Mendoza. 32. On June 9, 1998, following the Court's instructions, the Secretariat requested the Commission and the State to provide “any information they had about the appearance before the Court of the military officers or Acisclo Valladares Molina” in order to be able to locate and notify them. In a note of June 10, 1998, the Commission indicated that it did not have any information about the State officials cited as witnesses. It also stated that the said witnesses should be presented by the State. 33. On June 12, 1998, the State indicated that it had not been notified about a convocation of witnesses, “a fact which [could] not be inferred from the [O]rder of the President of the Court, of April 2, 1998, which exclusively convened the representatives of the Government and the Commission”. It also reiterated “its willingness to facilitate the execution of the summons”. Lastly, it indicated that Valladares Molina and Arango Escobar were no longer State officials. 34. On June 12, 1998, the Commission advised that the prosecutor assigned to investigate the Bámaca Velásquez Case in Guatemala, Shilvia Anabella Jerez Romero, had been assassinated on May 20 that year. On July 3, 1998, the State indicated that the facts communicated by the Commission were not related to the case sub judice. 35. On June 16, 17 and 18, 1998, the Court held a public hearing on the merits of the case and, according to the Order issued by the Court, the same day, it received the testimony of the witnesses and the expert witness proposed by the Commission