8. The State submitted three briefs on February 3 and 16 and March 1, 2000, respectively, in which, among other matters, it indicated that the “friendly settlement was impeded by the victim’s mother”, and attached a video. 9. On March 15 and 27, 2000, the Center for Justice and International Law (hereinafter “CEJIL”), as the representative of the victim and his next of kin, and the Inter-American Commission, respectively, requested the Court to allow a 30-day extension for the presentation of their arguments and evidence relating to reparations. These extensions were granted on April 27, 2000. 10. On April 26, 2000, the Commission presented its brief on reparations. 11. On April 27, 2000, CEJIL, representing the victim and his next of kin, presented a brief on reparations. 12. On April 27, 2000, the State presented its brief on reparations. 13. On May 11, 2000, the State presented a brief with which it forwarded copies of documents relating to the “draft law that is being processed before the Congress of Bolivia, which punishes the forced disappearance of persons and also states that there is no statute of limitations for this crime.” 14. On August 31, 2000, Bolivia advised the Court that it had substituted Gastón Ríos Anaya as deputy agent in the case and had appointed Iván Alemán to replace him1. 15. On March 16, 2001, the State presented a brief to which it attached a copy of “the latest measures taken in the legal proceedings underway in [the] Trial Court of Santa Cruz, Bolivia, against those accused of having committed various crimes against José Carlos Trujillo”. 16. On June 19, 2001, the President issued an order in which he summoned the parties to a public hearing to be held at the seat of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on September 6, 2001, to hear the arguments in order to determine reparations. 17. On August 14, 2001, CEJIL and the Commission requested the Court to allow Gladys Oroza de Solón Romero, the victim’s mother, to be “heard as a witness” at the public hearing on reparations. The same day, the Secretariat transmitted a copy of these briefs to the State and granted it until August 21, 2001, to submit its observations on the said request. On August 21, 2001, Bolivia advised that “it [had] no objection to the appearance of Gladys Oroza de Solón Romero”. 18. On August 27, 2001, the President issued an order in which, in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 44(1) of the Rules of Procedure, he decided to summon Mrs. Oroza de Solón Romero to give testimony at the public hearing that had been convened (supra para. 16). 19. On September 6, 2001, the Court held a public hearing on reparations. 1 In this respect, cf. Trujillo Oroza case. Judgment of January 26, 2000. Series C No. 64, paras. 23 and 26.