10. On June 1, 2011, the State presented certain documentation (infra para. 75) and the representatives and the Inter-American Commission submitted observations in this regard. On June 24, 2011, the parties were informed of the decision of the President of the Court to reject the incorporation of this documentation. On June 27, 2011, the Dominican Republic submitted a petition for reconsideration of the President’s decision. In an order of July 5, 2011, the Court ratified the President’s decision (infra paras. 75 and 77). 11. The public hearing was held on June 28 and 29, 2011, during the Court’s ninety-first regular session, which took place at its seat. 14 During the hearing, the Court received the testimony of one alleged victim, two witnesses, and one expert witness, as well as the observations and final oral arguments of the Inter-American Commission, the representatives, and the State. During the said hearing and in a note of July 13, 2011, the Court required the parties and the Commission to present specific helpful documentation and explanations. 15 12. On August 1, 2011, the representatives and the State forwarded their final written arguments and the Inter-American Commission presented its final written observations. The representatives and the Inter-American Commission responded to the Court’s requests for helpful information, documentation and explanations (supra para. 11). The State forwarded part of the information that the Court had asked for (supra para. 11), and provided the written report of witness Eduardo Sánchez Ortiz that the Court had requested. After it had been granted an extension, the State presented some of the missing information, documents and explanations requested by the Court as helpful evidence on August 22 and September 29, 2011. In its brief of August 22, 2011, the State desisted from one preliminary objection (infra para. 14 and footnote 16) and presented some “additional observations on the costs” requested by the representatives. 14 The following appeared before this hearing: (a) for the Inter-American Commission: Elizabeth Abi Mershed, Deputy Executive Secretary; Catalina Botero, Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression; Silvia Serrano Guzmán and Ana Luisa Gomes Lima, advisers; (b) for the representatives: Viviana Krsticevic, Ariela Peralta, Francisco Quintana and Annette Martínez of the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL); Rafael Domíngue from the civil society organization “Truth Commission” and Tomás Castro Monegro, lawyer, and (c) for the State: Nestor Juan Cerón Suero, Ambassador of the Dominican Republic to the Republic of Costa Rica; José Marcos Iglesias Iñigo, Agent and Minister Counselor of the Dominican Republic; Bolívar Sánchez Veloz, Deputy Agent and Deputy Attorney General of the Dominican Republic; Fran Soto, legal adviser to the State and Deputy Attorney General of the Dominican Republic; Danissa Cruz, legal adviser to the State and Deputy Prosecutor General of the Dominican Republic; José Casado Liberato, legal adviser, and Ricardo D. Ruíz Cepeda, legal adviser and human rights analyst of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 15 The following documentation and explanations, inter alia, were requested: (i) the State was asked to provide: detailed and specific information on the reopening of the criminal investigation in 2007 and a copy of the respective case file; regarding the alleged hypothesis of suicide, to specify or explain how this hypothesis approaches the issue of what happened to the body; information and documentation regarding the testimony rendered before police, judicial and investigation bodies of all those persons who stated that they had seen, or that another person had told them that they had seen, Mr. González Medina on the day of his alleged disappearance or on subsequent days, and who affirmed that they had witnessed, known of, or confirmed the destruction or alteration of official documents and, regarding this aspect, the State was asked to explain whether this aspect had been investigated during the domestic criminal proceedings and the conclusions reached; in relation to the conclusion reached by the Joint Board in its report that the deponent Juan Dionisio Marte took part in the detention of retired Brigadier General Jesús M. Mota Henríquez, rather than of Narciso González Medina, despite the deponent’s testimony, the State was asked to provide a copy of the record of detentions (logbook) of May 16, 1994, where this detention was recorded, as well as explanations about how the conclusion was reached that Mr. González Medina and Mr. Mota Henríquez resembled each other, and (ii) the witness Eduardo Sánchez Ortiz, who was the judge of the National District Seventh Investigating Court in charge of the investigation into what happened to Narciso González Medina, was asked to submit a report explaining various points relating to the domestic judicial proceedings, under Article 58(cc) of this Court’s Rules of Procedure. 7