the State, and an expert called by the Commission. Due to the exceptional circumstances caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, the public hearing was held by videoconference in accordance with the provisions of the Court's Rules of Procedure, on March 8 and 9, 2021, during the 140th regular session of the Court 12. 11. Amicus curiae. – On March 25, 2021, an amicus curiae brief was received, submitted by Javier Eduardo Fernández Dávila, President of the District Association of Magistrates of Arequipa 13. The date for its presentation expired on March 24, 2021, for which reason it is not admitted due to late submission. 12. Final written arguments and observations. On April 6, 2021, the representative for Mr. Díaz Alvarado and Ms. Rodríguez Ricse presented their final written arguments. On April 11, 2021, Mr. Cuya Lavy’s representatives presented their final arguments. On April 12, 2021, the representatives for Mr. Valenzuela Cerna and the State presented their final written arguments, and the State included several annexes. On that same date, the Commission presented its final written observations. On April 15, 2021, a period was granted to the representatives and the Commission to present, no later than April 28, 2021, the observations they deemed relevant to the documentation attached by the State. 13. Observations on the annexures to final arguments of the State. On April 22 and 27, 2021, the representative for Mr. Díaz Alvarado and Ms. Rodríguez Ricse, and the representatives for Mr. Cuya Lavy and the representatives for Mr. Valenzuela Cerna presented, respectively, their observations on the annexes to the final arguments brief presented by the State. On April 28, 2021, the Commission reported that it had no observations to make in this regard. 14. Additional evidence. On August 17, 2021, the State and the representatives were requested to send certain information, regulations, and documentation as additional evidence, in accordance with Article 58(b) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. On August 26, 2021, the representatives for Mr. Cuya and Mr. Alvarado and Ms. Díaz, and on August 27, 2021, the State presented the information and documentation requested. The State argued that it was impossible to collect certain requested evidence due to the measures adopted due to the Covid-19 pandemic and requested an additional period for its submission. In light of the foregoing, on September 1, 2021, the State and a representative of the alleged victims were requested to present, no later than September 8, 2021, the outstanding documentation. On September 8, 2021, the State presented the supplementary report. On September 10, 2021, the State sent observations regarding the additional evidence sent on August 26, 2021. The Commission stated that it had no observations. On September 20, 2021, Mr. Cuya's representatives submitted their observations regarding the State's supplementary report, and on September 21, 2021, the Commission stated that it had no President of the Court, requested the representatives to forward the expert opinion in Spanish, the working language of the case. On March 10, 2021, the deadline was granted as March 18, 2021 for the presentation of the translation into Spanish of the expert opinion. On March 23, 2021, it is indicated that the Spanish translation of the affidavit of the expert opinion was not presented, therefore, following the instructions of the President of the Court, the expert opinion presented was declared inadmissible. 12 The following appeared at this hearing: a) for the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights: Mr. Edgar Stuardo Ralón Orellana, Commissioner, Mrs. Marisol Blanchard, Deputy Executive Secretary, and Mr. Jorge Meza Flores and Mrs. Daniela Saavedra, advisors; b) for the representatives of Jorge Luis Cuya Lavy: Leonardo Cardoso de Magalhaes, Mariano Maciel, and Javier Mongrovejo, Inter-American Public Defenders; c) for the representatives of Walter Antonio Valenzuela Cerna: Rivana Barreto Ricarte de Oliveira and Hugo Giménez, Inter-American Public Defenders; d) for the representatives of Jean Aubert Díaz Alvarado and María Silvana Rodríguez Ricse: Enrique Tazza Chaupis and Guissepe Francescolli and the alleged victims Jean Aubert Díaz Alvarado and Martha Silvana Rodríguez Ricse, and e) for the representation of the State of Peru: Carlos Miguel Reaño Balarezo, Agent, Supranational Specialized Public Prosecutor, and Domingo Enrique Rojas Chacaltana and Angela Fiorella Huasupoma Soto, Lawyers of the Supranational Specialized Public Prosecutor's Office. 13 The brief was signed by Javier Eduardo Fernández Dávila Mercado, President of the District Association of Magistrates of Arequipa. The brief makes considerations on ways the evaluation and ratification process is contrary to the international obligations of the Peruvian State and orders a measure of reparation contained in a guarantee of nonrepetition that expels said figure from the Peruvian legal system. 7