4 Pesantes as Judge ad hoc. 16. On October 7, 2003, after having been granted an extension, the CEDHU, through Messrs. Elsie Monge, César Duque, and Alejandro Ponce Villacís, in their capacity of representatives presented their brief of pleadings, motions, and evidence (hereinafter “brief of pleadings and motions”), which included documentary evidence and they offered expert evidence. 17. On November 24, 2003, after the extension granted, the State submitted its answer to the application and its observations on the brief of pleadings and motions, which included documentary evidence. The term for its submission had expired on November 10 of the same year. The mentioned answer to the application presented by the State was placed before the consideration of the full Court, which decided to reject it, “since it was submitted outside the term granted to the State to answer the application.” 18. On April 6, 2004 the Commission appointed Mr. Evelio Fernández Arévalos and Santiago A. Canton as delegates of the present case and Mrs. Christina Cerna as legal advisor. 19. On January 17, 2005 the Secretariat, following the President’s instructions, requested that the representatives present, no later than February 1, 2005, the definitive list of suggested expert witnesses with the objective of programming the possible public hearing on the merits and possible reparations and costs in the present case. 20. On February 1, 2005 the Secretariat, following the President’s instructions and pursuant to Article 45 of the Rules of Procedure, requested that the State submit the following documents as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case: complete file of the criminal actions carried out against Mr. Acosta Calderón; Constitution of Ecuador in force at the time of the facts of the present case, as well as the Constitution currently in force; Criminal Code in force at the time of the facts of the present case; Code of Criminal Procedures in force at the time of the facts of the present case; and the Law on the Control of the Trafficking of Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances valid until September of 1990. 21. On February 1, 2005 the Commission pointed out that “based on the characteristics of the instant case, it was possible to omit its public hearing” and they requested that the Court “proceed to receive relevant documentary evidence in conjunction with the final written allegations of the parties, without ordering the initiation of the oral proceeding.” 22. On February 1, 2005, the representatives informed that Mr. Reinaldo Calvachi Cruz would render his expert report by affidavit, and they pointed out the specific object of said expert assessment. They also stated that they did not consider necessary to hold a public hearing in this case. 23. On February 3, 2005, the requested that the State present regard to the observations made reference to the holding of a public 24. Secretariat, following the President’s instructions, its remarks, no later than February 11, 2005, in by the Commission and the representatives with hearing. On February 10, 2005, the State informed that it was “in dialogues [with the