10 31. On February 21, 1997, the State presented a brief in which it formulated a number of considerations regarding the public hearing held on February 6 and 7, 1997, and submitted documentation on the general human rights situation in Peru. 32. By note of April 15, 1997, the Commission informed the Court that it did not consider it necessary to receive the statement of any other witnesses it had proposed in this Case. 33. On June 27, 1997, the State presented its brief of final arguments and repeated its position on the preliminary objections it had previously lodged with the Court, to the effect that when the petition from which this case had originated was received by the Commission, not only had remedies through the domestic courts not been exhausted, but they were actually in process. It analyzed the statements given at the public hearing, underscored what it described as discrepancies in the statements and the facts presented, and challenged the veracity of Magistrate Minaya-Calle's testimony. In conclusion, the State requested that the Court declare the petition groundless in all its parts. 34. In June 30, 1997, the Commission submitted its brief of final arguments, in which it reaffirmed that it had proven that the State was responsible for the arbitrary detention and forced disappearance of Ernesto Rafael Castillo-Páez on October 21, 1990, to whose detriment it had violated Articles 7, 5, 4, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, all in relation to the general obligation to respect and guarantee rights as enshrined in Article 1(1). The Commission also adduced new arguments on the possible violation of Articles 17 (Rights of the Family) and "right to the truth", to the detriment of Mr. Castillo-Páez. The Commission described in detail the inefficacy of the judicial proceedings and investigation conducted in the case and summed up the testimony delivered by Magistrate Elba Minaya and Mr. Cronwell Pierre Castillo-Castillo, father of the alleged victim, concerning the State's obstruction and lack of cooperation they had encountered in the process. It also summarized the statements of eye-witnesses Joe Roberto Ruiz-Huapaya and María Elena Castro-Osorio. 35. On September 9, 1997, the State submitted a brief in which it declared that Ernesto Rafael Castillo-Páez's cousin, José Abel Malpartida-Páez, had been killed while handling explosives in a "Shining Path" maneuver. In that brief the State claimed that José Abel Malpartida Páez and Ernesto Rafael Castillo-Páez were not enrolled as students at the Catholic University of Lima. V 36. As attachments to the application, and during the proceedings, the Commission submitted copies of a series of documents and statements concerning the Peruvian authorities' abduction and subsequent disappearance of Ernesto Rafael Castillo-Páez, as well as judgments, copies of statements and declarations. It likewise submitted official communications from a number of public departments, conclusions, rulings and judicial decisions. 37. As evidence in the Case, the State submitted a number of documents: judgments, copies of declarations and statements, police statements and reports, and a photograph. 38. In the instant case, the Court will assess the value of the documents presented by the Commission and the State, against which, incidentally, no challenge or objection was made.