17 Appearing before the Court: for the alleged victims: Julian Knowles, representative; Keir Starmer, representative; Yasmin Waljee, representative; Parvais Jabber, representative; Julie Morris, representative; for the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights: Robert Goldman, delegate; Nicholas Blake, delegate; Brian Tittemore, advisor; and expert witnesses offered by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights: Desmond Allum; Nigel Eastman; and Gaietry Pargass. 53) As previously indicated (supra paras. 16 and 49), the State did not appear in the public hearing. The hearing was held pursuant to Article 27 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, which was read by the President at the beginning of the hearing and states the following: Article 27. Default Procedure 1. When a party fails to appear in or continue with a case, the Court shall, on its own motion, take such measures as may be necessary to complete the consideration of the case. 2. When a party enters a case at a later stage of the proceedings, it shall take up the proceedings at that stage. 54) During the public hearing, the Commission provided additional documentation. 28 This documentation was sent to the State and to the representatives of the alleged victims on March 4, 2002. 55) On February 21, 2002, the Court requested that the parties send their final written submissions on the merits and eventual reparations in the present Case. 56) On March 15, 2002, the Inter-American Commission submitted copies of various judgments issued by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council 29 dated March 11, 2002. 30 28 The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights submitted the following documents: Summary of Individual Petitioners; Procurator Fiscal, Linlithgow v. John Watson and Paul Burrows, Judgment of the Lords of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, delivered the 29th January 2002; and Mithu v. State of Punjab, Supreme Court Report: V.Y. Chandrachud, C.J., S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, V.D. Tulzapurkar, O. Chinnappa Reddy and A. Varadarajan, JJ.