and four expert witnesses,9 one of whom took part by videoconference. 10 The representatives 11 and the expert witnesses12 who appeared in the hearing also submitted certain documentation. The Court asked the parties to submit additional information as well. Finally, the Court received statements by affidavit under the terms of the President’s December 19, 2013 order. 12. Documents submitted by “friends of the Court.” – Antero Flores Aráoz Esparza submitted a “friend of the Court” brief on February 3, 2014, consisting of the Spanish-language book Rehén por Siempre. Operación Chavín de Huántar, by Luis Giampietri, along with copies of selected pages, certified by a public attestor, from the Spanish-language books, Rehén voluntario. 126 días en la residencia del Embajador del Japón, by Juan Julio Wicht and Luis Rey de Castro; Cumpleaños del Emperador. 126 días de secuestro, by Jorge San Román de la Fuente; and Rehenes en la Sartén, by Samuel Matsuda Nishimura; and an interview with Francisco Tudela van Breugel Douglas. The Court noted that such items could not be held as amicus curiae briefs or weighed as evidence per se. Therefore, these documents submitted as “friend of the Court” briefs were declared inadmissible. Later, on February 27 and 28, 2014, Antero Flores Aráoz Esparza sent additional documents as amicus curiae briefs and, together with Delia Muñoz Muñoz, submitted “an extension of the amicus curiae.” These briefs and documents were time-barred and held inadmissible.13 his testimony in writing before a public attestor. The State withdrew the statement by Jorge Gumucio Granier on February14, 2014. A note from the Registrar on January 28, 2014 informed, on instructions from the full Court, that the Commission’s explanations of prior commitments did not qualify as an exceptional situation that could justify the request for another expert witness to replace Christof Heyns, under the terms of Article 49 of the Rules of Procedure, and therefore the Court admitted the alternate request to receive this expert’s statement by affidavit to be delivered in writing before a public attestor. 9 A note from the Registrar on January 16, 2014, on instructions from the President of the Court, responded to the information submitted by the representatives that expert witness Fondebrider would be unable to travel to the seat of the Court to deliver his expert statement as ordered, due to health problems as validated by medical certificate. The Court admitted the request to allow this expert witness to give his statement over audiovisual electronic media during the hearing, in accordance with Article 51(11) of the Rules of Procedure, so that the parties and Commission could cross-examine him and the judges could ask any questions they deemed relevant at the time the statement was delivered. 10 11 The representatives submitted the following documents: (1) Report by Professor Derrick Pounder from the Chavín de Huántar proceedings. (2) Report by Juan Manuel Cartagena: forensic report from case 1244, “Chavín de Huántar,” from the State of Peru to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. (3) Report by Juan Manuel Cartagena: forensic report from case 1244, “Chavín de Huántar” from the State of Peru to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights / Report 2. 4) Expert witness statement by Juan Carlos Leiva Pimentel and Antonio Loayza Miranda. 5) Report by John H.M. Austin, Professor Emeritus of Radiology and member of the Department of Radiology of Columbia University Medical Center. 6) 18 (eighteen) photographs of the judicial case file. By expert witness Federico Andreu Guzmán: a Spanish-language summary of his statement, “Resumen escrito del peritaje de Federico Andreu-Guzmán en el caso Cruz Sánchez et al. v. Peru ante la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos;” by expert witness Jean Carlo Mejía Azuero: the Spanish-language document “Operación `Chavín de Huántar´ mirada desde el derecho internacional aplicable a los conflictos armados. Del uso de la fuerza letal;” and by expert witness Juan Manuel Cartagena Pastor: (1) Forensic report of May 24, 2012, (2) Forensic report 2 of June 22, 2012, (3) Annex to forensic reports 1 and 2 of July 7, 2012 and (4) Forensic report 3 of July 21, 2012. 12 Article 44(3) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure states, among other things, that “[a]micus curiae briefs may be submitted at any time during contentious proceedings for up to 15 days following the public hearing. If the Court does not hold a public hearing, amicus briefs must be submitted within 15 days following the order setting deadlines for the submission of final arguments.” The hearing in the instant case took place on February 3 and 4, 2014, meaning that the deadline given in this rule lapsed on February 19, 2014. 13