6 and requested the Court to accept it, since the expert witness was unable to attend the hearing. 32. On February 25, 2005, the representatives submitted a brief informing the Court that it had no comments to make on the sworn written statements made before notary public (affidavits) remitted by the Commission and the State, or on the sworn written statement remitted by the Commission (supra paras. 29, 30 and 31). 33. On February 25 and March 1, 2005, the State forwarded its comments on the sworn written statements presented by the Commission and the representatives (supra paras. 30 and 31). Also, in the brief of March 1, 2005, in response to the request of the President and all the judges of the Court (supra paras. 22 and 24), the State attached the “report of the Supreme Electoral Council to the Minister of Foreign Relations […] of February 25, 2005.” Among this documentation, the State provided a document signed by the President of the RAAN Regional Electoral Council advising that on July 15, 2000, the legal representative of YATAMA had presented for registration a sheet with the names of the candidates who would take part in the municipal elections in that region. 34. On March 8, 2005, the United Nations University for Peace submitted an amicus curiae brief. 35. On March 9, 2005, the representatives forwarded a brief with which they presented a “copy of the final resolution issued in file No. 217/00, on March 3, 2001, by the Ombudsman of Nicaragua.” On the same date, the representatives forwarded to the Court a brief in which they clarified that the resolution was issued on March 3, 2005, and that they had provided this document as “a new piece of evidence in the proceedings.” 36. On March 9, 2005, the Commission sent a brief with its comments on the State’s objections to the “written statements made by the witnesses, Nancy Elizabeth Henríquez James, Centuriano Knight Andrews, Eklan James Molina, Hazel Law Blanco and Cristina Póveda Montiel, and also by the expert witness, María Luisa Acosta Castellón” (supra para. 33). On March 12, 2005, on the instructions of the President, the Secretariat of the Court informed the Commission that the brief of March 9, 2005, had not been accepted because it was a written procedural measure that was not provided for in the Court’s Rules of Procedure. 37. On March 9 and 10, 2005, the Court held a public hearing on preliminary objections and merits, reparations, and costs, during which it received the statements of the witnesses and the reports of the expert witnesses proposed by the parties (supra para. 28). The Court also heard the final arguments of the Commission, the representatives and the State. During the hearing, the witness, Jorge Teytom Fedrick, provided several documents.