5 10. On November 15 and 16, 2007, the Commission and the representatives submitted, respectively, the written arguments to the preliminary objections raised by the State. 11. On March 18, 2008 the President of the Court ordered to receive the affidavits of fifteen people, and the expert opinions of six people proposed by the Commission, the representatives and the State, with respect to which the parties had the opportunity to submit observations. Moreover, the President of the Court convened the Inter-American Commission, the representatives and the State to a public hearing in order to listen to the statements of three witnesses and three expert witnesses proposed by the parties (infra para. 93), as well as the oral final arguments of the parties on the preliminary objections and possible merits, reparations and costs.9 12. On April 11, 2008, the representatives submitted “an objection or challenge” against one of the witness proposed by the State and on the 18th of that same month and year, the State submitted a “formal objection” against two persons proposed as expert witnesses by the representatives.10 On May 2, 2008 the Court issued an order by which it dismissed the objection presented by the representatives against the witness and accepted the objection made by the State against the two persons proposed as expert witnesses. 13. On May 7 and 8, 2008 the Court held the public hearing during its LXXIX Period of Sessions at its seat.11 14. On May 28, 2008 the Secretariat, following the instructions of the President and in accordance with Article 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure, requested the parties to refer to some of the issues of the written final arguments.12 Moreover, under the terms of Article 9 Cf. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 18, 2008. 10 Upon the submission of the objections, following the instructions of the President, it was requested to the parties and the people who have been summoned to appear as expert witnesses and challenged to present the observations they consider convenient. On April 22, 2008 the State submitted the observations to the objections of Mr. Hernández López and the Commission stated that it had no observations to make. On April 25, 2008, the Commission and the representatives presented the observations to the objection made against the people offered as expert witnesses, who in turn forwarded their corresponding comments on May 1, 2008. 11 To this hearing, there appeared: a) on behalf of the Inter-American Commission: Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro, Commissioner, delegate, Juan Pablo Albán A., advisor and Silvia Serrano, advisor; b) on behalf of the representatives: Carlos Ayala Corao, Margarita Escudero León, Ana Cristina Núñez Machado and Freddy Aray Larez; and c) on behalf of the State: Germán Saltrón Negretti, State’s Agent for Human Rights of the Ministry of the Popular Power for Foreign Affairs; Larry Devoe, Deputy Agent; and as advisor Roselyn Daher, Legal Consultant of the National Commission on Telecommunications; Alejandro Castillo, 5º Prosecutor of the Government Attorney’s Office before the Supreme Tribunal of Justice; Julián Isaías Rodríguez; Soledad Ramírez; Pedro Maldonado, General Director of Human Rights of the Ministry of the Popular Power for Domestic Affairs; Luisa Sifontes and Lizángela Gómez, members of the Legal Consultancy of the Popular Power for Domestic Affairs and Justice. 12 The parties were requested to refer to specific issues under the following terms: a) In relation to the alleged violations of certain human rights, the parties are requested to specifically refer to the existence and scope of the causal link between the facts alleged in the instant case and the alleged international responsibility of the State; b) As to the available domestic resources, the parties are requested to inform whether apart from the actions established in the criminal legislation, there are other suitable and effective resources to protect the human rights that have been violated in the instant case, as well as to obtain reparations or compensation in case it is determined the existence of such human rights violation; c) The parties are requested to state whether, apart from the alleged criminal proceedings initiated by the alleged victims, other type of actions that are established in the domestic legislation were initiated in order to try to obtain reparations for the alleged human rights violations of this case; and d) As to the conduct of the State in the facts of this case, the parties are requested to explain the reasons to assert whether the State's participation in such facts would have been diligent and which would have been the participation of the alleged victims. Specially, the parties are requested to make reference to the State's argument