-11have any comments to raise against the replacement of the testimony of José Ugaz Sánchez-Moreno by the testimony of César Azabache-Carracciolo” (supra para. 53.) 57. On September 1, 2005, the President issued an Order accepting the proposal made by the State to replace witness José Ugaz Sánchez-Moreno by witness César Azabache-Carracciolo and summoned this latter to render testimony at a public hearing to be held at the seat of the Court as from September 20, 2005 (supra para. 53.) 58. On September 2, 2005, the Commission filed a brief stating that “it waived the right to submit the expert opinion which was to be rendered by Josmell MuñozCórdoba” (supra paras. 51 and 54) and filed its comments about the statements of witnesses Wilfredo Castillo-Sabalaga and Marcela Teresa Arriola-Espino, and of expert witness Alejandro Silva-Reina (supra para. 55.) 59. On September 8, 2005, the State filed its brief containing the comments about the statements of witnesses Wilfredo Castillo-Sabalaga, Marcela Teresa Arriola-Espino, Rogelia Rosario Agüero-Laos, Juan de Dios Berrospi-Pérez, Yeny Zully Cubas-Santos, Agustín Huanca-Gimio and Carmen Esperanza Yaranga-Lluya (supra paras. 54 and 55.) 60. On September 13, 2005, the Commission filed a brief, to which it attached an appendix, by means of which it stated that “Samuel Abad-Yupanqui had informed the Commission that for reasons beyond his control it would be impossible for him to travel to the city where the Court has its seat in order to render his expert testimony on the date set for the hearing” (supra para. 51,) and therefore, “he had forwarded to the Commission his expert opinion in writing, which opinion was attached and submitted for the consideration of the Court.” 61. On September 15, 2005, the Secretariat, following instructions by the President of the Court, granted a non-extendable term of ten days for the State and the common intervener to file any comments that they deemed necessary regarding the expert opinion of Abad-Yupanqui. 62. On September 16, 2005, the Commission filed a brief requesting “that the brief submitted by [the Municipality of Lima] (supra para. 52) in the capacity as amicus curiae be not admitted, since said municipal body was accused of not complying with the judicial orders and the Public Attorney of the Municipality was appointed by the State to participate in the public hearing. 63. On September 20, 2005, in the morning and prior to the commencement of the public hearing, the State submitted a compact disc containing a video edited by the State and requested authorization to use such video during the public hearing. On that same day, the Court decided that the State could not use the said video during the presentation of its final arguments at the public hearing since it considered the video as evidence. The Court decided not to receive said video and forward it to the other parties, on the understanding that it would be given consideration in due time after receiving any pertinent comments. 64. On September 20 and 21, 2005, the public hearing was held to deal with the preliminary objections, and possibly with the merits of the case, reparations and costs, and the following persons appeared: a) by the Inter-American Commission: Víctor H. Madrigal-Borloz and Manuela Cuvi-Rodríguez, legal counsel; b) by the