5 15. By order of November 12, 1990, the President of the Court (hereinafter "the President"), by mutual agreement with the Agent of Suriname and the delegates of the Commission and in consultation with the Permanent Commission of the Court (hereinafter "the Permanent Commission"), set March 29, 1991, as the deadline for the Commission's submission of the memorial provided for in Article 29 of the Rules of Procedure and June 28, 1991, as the deadline for submission by the Government of its counter-memorial. 16. By note of November 12, 1990, the President requested the Government to appoint an ad hoc judge for this case. In a communication dated December 13, 1990, the Agent informed the Court that the Government had named Professor Antônio A. Cançado Trindade of Brasilia, Brazil, to that position. 17. By note of February 7, 1991, the Commission appointed Professor Claudio Grossman to be its legal adviser in the instant case. In a note dated December 23, 1993, the Commission subsequently placed on record the fact that, in addition to his role as adviser, Professor Grossman was also acting as counsel for the original petitioner. If the Court considered this designation problematical, the Commission would request a public hearing to present its arguments thereon. After obtaining the views of the Court, the President responded in a note dated January 11, 1994, that the public hearing requested "will not take place. It is possible that this matter may be taken up by the Tribunal when it addresses the merits of the case." 18. On April 1, 1991, the Commission submitted its memorial in the case, together with the relevant evidence. In it, the Commission requested that the Court accept the evidence presented to the Commission and find that the facts have been duly verified in accordance with the applicable legal standards and criteria [. . .] [and if it should be deemed] that such evidence is insufficient, that the Court reserve the right of the Commission to produce additional proof; [that] it hold the State of Suriname responsible for the death of Mr. Asok Gangaram Panday while he was in detention and find that his death constitutes a violation of Articles 1(1) (2), 4, 5, 7 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights. The Commission also asked the Court to find that Suriname must make adequate reparation to the next of kin of Mr. Asok Gangaram Panday and that, consequently, it order: the payment of compensation for indirect damages and loss of earnings, reparations for moral damages (including the payment of an indemnity and the adoption of measures to restore the good name of the victim), and the investigation of the crime committed, providing for the punishment of those found to be responsible [. . .] [t]hat it order Suriname to pay the costs incurred in the handling of this case, including the reasonable fees of the victim's lawyer. 19. The Government presented its counter-memorial and evidence on the case on June 28, 1991. In that document, it requested the Court to declare that: a) Suriname cannot be held responsible for the death of Asok Gangaram Panday. b) In view of the fact that it has not been proved that the violation attributed to Suriname was committed, Suriname should not be obliged to pay any type of compensation. c) Suriname be allowed to reserve its right to produce additional proof in support of its position if the Court should so decide. d) The petitioner be ordered to pay the costs of this case.