-9affidavits made before a Notary Public, pursuant to the provisions set forth in Article 47(3) of the Court Rules of Procedure[...].” 46. On May 30, 2005, the Secretariat, following the instructions of the President, requested Peru to submit, not later than June 3, 2005, supplementary information to illustrate the relevance, regarding the facts and the object of the instant case, that it would have for the Court to get a copy of the testimonies rendered by María Angélica Arce-Guerrero and Matilde Pinchi-Pinchi before the Primer Juzgado Penal Especial (First Special Criminal Court) of the Corte Superior de Justicia de Lima (Supreme Court of Justice of Lima); and also requested the State to indicate which purpose would it serve to have an affidavit sworn to by those persons and also the pertinence of the same as regards the instant case. 47. On June 1, 2005, the State submitted the clarifications and information that had been requested by the President (supra para. 46,) as regards to the offering of the affidavits of María Angélica Arce-Guerrero and Matilde Pinchi-Pinchi (supra para. 45). 48. On June 10, 2005, the Commission filed its comments to the offering made by the State as regards to the affidavits of María Angélica Arce-Guerrero and Matilde Pinchi-Pinchi and as regards to the clarifications and information submitted by the State in that respect (supra paras. 45 and 47.) The Commission stated, inter alia, that the offering made by the State “should be dismissed on the grounds of being unjustified and irrelevant.” 49. On June 14, 2005, the common intervener filed comments to the offering made by the State as regards the affidavits of María Angélica Arce-Guerrero and Matilde Pinchi-Pinchi (supra para. 45) and as regards to the clarifications and information submitted by the State in that respect (supra para. 46.) On June 24, 2005, the common intervener submitted Appendixes to the said comments. In this submission, the common intervener stated, inter alia, that “it would leave to the better judgment [of the Court] the decision about the pertinence of the request made by Peru to put on record the affidavits that the said State intends to incorporate to the instant case;” and “in case the Honorable Court would decide to uphold such request, [...] then the common intervener would, in equity, request it not to peruse only the two affidavits proposed by the defendant State, but also to consider all the testimonies rendered throughout the proceedings that caused the opening of this case N° 30-2004.” 50. On June 27, 2005, the State submitted a statement, by means of which it made reference to the comments filed by the Commission and by the common intervener as regards to the offering made by the State regarding the testimonies of María Angélica Arce-Guerrero and Matilde Pinchi-Pinchi (supra paras. 45, 47 and 48.) 51. On August 1, 2005, the President issued an Order requesting Rogelia Rosario Agüero-Laos, Juan de Dios Berrospi-Pérez, Yeny Zully Cubas-Santos, Agustín Huanca-Gimio, Carmen Esperanza Yaranga-Lluya, Marcela Teresa Arriola-Espino and Wilfredo Castillo-Sabalaga, witnesses proposed by the Commission and by the common intervener, to render their testimony through affidavits. The President also ordered Josmell Muñoz-Córdoba, expert witness proposed by the Commission, and Alejandro Silva-Reina, proposed as expert witness by the common intervener, to render their expert opinions in the form of affidavits. Likewise, in such Order, the President summoned the parties to a public hearing to be held in the seat of the