9 36. On June 17, 1998, the Commission presented a note from the witness, Robert Torricelli, indicating that he was unable to be present at the public hearing and providing information about the facts of the case. 37. The same day, the Commission requested the Court to require the State to present the following witnesses: Acisclo Valladares Molina, Julio Cintrón Gálvez, Julio Roberto Alpírez, Mario Ernesto Sosa Orellana, Julio Alberto Soto Bilbao, Rolando Edeberto Barahona, Margarito Sarceño Medrano, Simeón Cum Chutá, Alberto Gómez, Major Aguirre, Gregorio Ávila, José Víctor Cordero Cardona and Ismael Salvatierra Arroyo. It also indicated that “it had always made it clear that [the Commission] requested the [presentation] of these witnesses” by the State. It added that, from the Order of the President of April 2, 1998, and from Article 24 of the Rules of Procedure, it can be inferred that “the State has an affirmative responsibility to notify all the witnesses summoned who are under its jurisdiction, and also to facilitate the execution of the summons” by the Court. Lastly, it advised that the presence of the above-mentioned witnesses was “extremely important for the examination of the case”. On July 3, 1998, the State declared that, with regard to this note, “the Court [...], in plenary, during the preliminary hearing (sic) convened on June 16, 1998, heard the arguments of the Commission and the State.” 38. The same day, the Commission presented documents related to the facts of the case from various United States Government agencies. In an Order of June 19, 1998, the Court decided not to admit these documents, as they were time-barred. 39. On June 30, 1998, the Secretariat, on the Court's instructions, requested the Commission and the State to present any information they had no later than July 15, 1998 that would help locate the witnesses mentioned in the Commission's communication of June 17, 1998. On July 7, 1998, the Commission advised that it had no information for locating these witnesses. 40. On June 30, 1998, the Court requested the State to transmit some documents attached to the application, in accordance with Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure. On July 30, 1998, the State forwarded these documents. 41. In a note of July 3, 1998, the State reiterated its point of view about the witnesses proposed by the Commission (supra 33). 42. On July 31, 1998, the petitioners sent a power of attorney dated June 22, 1998, in favor of the Center for Justice and International Law (hereinafter “CEJIL”). On August 3, 1998, the Commission sent copy of a power of attorney granted by the petitioners to CEJIL, represented by Viviana Krsticevic, on June 19, 1998. On August 21, 1998, the President of the Court requested the Commission to provide certain clarifications about the presentation of the said powers of attorney. In a communication of August 27, 1998, the Commission indicated that the power of attorney of June 22, 1998, replaced that of June 19. On September 9, 1998, the State indicated that, at this stage of the proceeding, the persons named in the power of attorney are not a party, in accordance with the procedure, and that, in any case, the power of attorney had not been granted in accordance with the provisions of Guatemalan legislation, so that “it had the duty to object to the use of legal instruments created in violation of the laws in force in the country.” 43. On August 29, 1998, the Court summoned the following witnesses to a public hearing at the seat of the Court on the following November 22: Acisclo Valladares