7 their right to freedom of association; Programa de Derechos Humanos de la Universidad Iberoamericana (Human Rights Program of the Ibero-American University),17 regarding the prohibition to assess evidence obtained under torture and without judicial control; International Forensic Program of Physicians for Human Rights,18 on the non-compliance with the international requirements regarding the evidence of sodium rhodizonate; EarthRights International,19 on the human rights abuses in the context of resistance of communities against extractive industries and Environmental Defender Law Center,20 on the serious situation of Mexican environmental defenders, the international acknowledgment of environmental defenders and the violation of the rights of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel. 10. The public hearing was held on August 26 and 27, 2010 during the LXXXVIII Regular Sessions of the Court, at the Court’s seat.21 The judges asked various questions during the hearing and requested evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case.22 17 The brief was filed on September 10, 2010 by Vanessa Coria Castilla, Sandra Salcedo Gonzalez and Jose Antonio Ibañez on behalf of the Human Rights Program of the Ibero-American University. 18 The brief was filed on September 9, 2010 by Ronald L. Singer and Stefan Schmitt on behalf of the International Forensic Program of Physicians for Human Rights. 19 The brief was filed on September 9, 2010 by Jonathan Kaufman and Marco Simons on behalf of EarthRights International. 20 The brief was filed on August 12, 2010 by Nicholas Hesterberg on behalf of the Environmental Defender Law Center. 21 To this hearing, there appeared: a) on behalf of the Inter-American Commission: Rodrigo Escobar Gil, Commissioner; Karla Quintana Osuna, legal advisor, and Silvia Serrano Guzmán, legal advisor; b) on behalf of the representatives: Luis Arriaga Valenzuela, S.J. Centro Prodh, Stephanie Erin Brewer and Jaqueline Sáenz Andujo, from Centro Prodh; Alejandra Nuño, Agustín Martin, Luis Carlos Buob, Gisela De León and Marcia Aguiluz, from CEJIL and c) on behalf of the State: Minister Alejandro Negrín Muñoz, Director General of Human Rights and Democracy of the Foreign Affairs Secretariat; Ambassador Zadalinda González y Reynero, State Agent and Ambassador of Mexico in Costa Rica; Mrs. Yéssica De Lamadrid Téllez, Director General for International Cooperation of the Juridical UnderSecretariat and International Affairs of the Attorney General’s Office; Mr. Carlos Garduño Salinas, Assistant Director General for Cases of the Unity for the Defense and Promotion of Human Rights of the Secretariat of the Interior; Brigade General J.M. and Mr. Rogelio Rodríguez Correa, Subdirector of International Affairs of the General Direction of Human Rights of the National Defense Secretariat; Mr. José Ignacio Martín del Campo Covarrubias, Director of the International Litigation Area in Human Rights of the Foreign Affairs Secretariat; Mr. David Ricardo Uribe González, Subdirector of the International Litigation Area in Human Rights of the Foreign Affairs Secretariat; Mr. Enrique Paredes Frías, Subdirector of International Litigation Area in Human Rights of the Foreign Affairs Secretariat; Mr. Luis Manuel Jardón Piña, Head of the Litigation Department of the Legal Advisory Department of the Foreign Affairs Secretariat; and Mr. Rafael Barceló Durazo, Diplomatic Attaché for Political and Human Rights Affairs of the Embassy of Mexico in Costa Rica. 22 On September 13, 2010, following the full Court’s instructions, the Secretariat forwarded a communication to all the parties in which it indicated some of the questions made by the Judges of the Tribunal at the public hearing, dealing with: i) The presence of the Armed Forces in Guerrero: a) the existence of an express, well-grounded and reasoned request of the civil authorities for the military forces to intervene in the scene of the facts and b) further information about the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico in relation to the participation of the Armed Forces in matters of public security; ii) the detention of the alleged victims: c) the legal framework governing the competence of the military authorities to arrest and/or detain civilians, d) a detailed description of the facts since the detention of Messrs. Montiel Flores and Cabrera García until they were brought before a judge or a competent authority, explaining if applicable, the excess of time in reasonable terms, and e) information and evidence about the alleged flyers that the alleged victims were distributing and the activities they were allegedly carrying out on the day of their detention; iii) The alleged arms seized from the alleged victims at the time of their detention: f) minutes of the rising up in arms when Messrs. Cabrera García and Montiel Flores were detained, the type of arms found and their exact number, the final judicial decisions regarding the responsibility of the alleged victims for holding such arms and which arms gave rise to an advance of the corresponding criminal investigation. In case of contradictions in some minutes, specific motions about them, g) information about the Mexican legislation on the classification of weapons in terms of how dangerous they are for public security, h) information about the validity and skill of the sodium rhodizonate test to evidence the use or manipulation of weapons, i) information and motions on the alleged contradictions resulting from the sodium rhodizonate test in this