5 Verónica Gómez, and Ariel E. Dulitzky. Mr. Méndez subsequently withdrew as the representative of the plaintiff by note of September 16, 1996. 6. On March 23, 1995, the State informed the Court that it had appointed Mario Cavagnaro-Basile as its Agent, and on the following day, it communicated its appointment of Iván Paredes-Yataco as its Alternate Agent. 7. On March 24, 1995, Peru filed a preliminary objection of "non-exhaustion of domestic remedies." 8. On May 5, 1995, the State submitted its answer to the application, in which it "denie[d] and challenge[d] it in all its parts." It further requested the Court to declare it entirely groundless, and filed objections to some of the witnesses. 9. By Order of May 17, 1995, the Court declared inadmissible the State's request for suspension of the proceeding on the merits of the matter until such time as the preliminary objection filed had been disposed of (supra, para. 7). It further decided to continue processing the case. 10. On July 11, 1995, and January 9, 1996, in response to the Secretariat's request of May 20, 1995, the State submitted the documentation concerning the Case against Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo in the domestic courts. 11. In a brief of December 29, 1995, the Commission submitted a copy of the judgment of October 6 of that year, issued by the Supreme Court of Justice, upholding the conviction of Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo et al for the crime of terrorism. On January 22, 1996, the State asked the Court to dismiss that brief and deemed it not to have been presented. On January 30 of that year, the President of the Court (hereinafter "the President") communicated that the brief would be evaluated in due course. 12. By Judgment of January 31, 1996, the Court unanimously decided to dismiss the preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies lodged by Peru and to proceed with the consideration of the merits in the case (Loayza Tamayo Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of January 31, 1996. Series C No. 25, Operative paragraphs 1 and 2). 13. On March 4, 1996, the Commission submitted the list of the following witnesses to be summoned by the Court to appear at the public hearings on the merits: Luis GuzmánCasas, Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides, María Elena Loayza-Tamayo, María de la Cruz-Pari, Juan Alberto Delgadillo, Enrique Pineda-Gonzáles, Santiago Felipe Agüero-Obregón, Pedro Telmo Vega-Valle, Iván Bazán-Chacón, and Víctor Alvarez. On April 24, 1996, Peru submitted a brief in which it upheld the objections filed in the answer to the application, concerning the first six witnesses, and objected to the remainder, with the exception of the last, on the ground that they had been convicted, some of the crime of terrorism, and others of treason, and to Mr. Bazán-Chacón because he was a defense attorney for the convicted prisoner Pedro Telmo Vega-Valle. The Commission also proposed the following experts: Nigel Rodley, Julio Maier, Carlos Arslanian, and Héctor Faúndez. It further pointed out that some of the witnesses were imprisoned in various Peruvian penitentiaries, and requested that if they were unable to appear at the seat of the Court, the proceedings should be held at the various penal establishments. 14. On July 2, 1996, the Court decided to dismiss the objections filed by the State against the aforementioned witnesses (supra, para. 13) and reserved the right to evaluate their statements at a later date. It also authorized the President to order the pertinent