6 25. On January 11, 2006, the Commission reported that it would not submit a statement from Percílio de Souza or expert testimony from Belisário dos Santos Júnior. 26. On January 11, 2006, the representatives filed a sworn statement by Plácido Medeiros de Souza, rendered before the Human Rights Ombudsman of Natal and bearing a notarized signature. That same day, Luiz Flávio Gomes rendered expert witness, also signed by Alice Bianchini, and on January 24, 2006, he sent an explanation as to the participation of Alice Bianchini in the statement. 27. On January 11, 2006, the State submitted statements, with notarized signatures, by Augusto César Oliveira Serra Pinto and Gerson de Souza Barbosa, and reported that it would not submit testimony by Célio de Figueiredo Maia. The State also submitted a statement by Tálita de Borba Maranhão e Silva and asked that it be admitted as evidence in the instant case. 28. On January 27, 2006, the Commission submitted its comments on the statements of the witnesses and expert witness submitted by the representatives and the State. The Commission filed no objections to the opinion of expert witness Luiz Flávio Gomes, in view of his communication of January 24, 2006 (supra para. 26). The Commission felt that the statements by Augusto César Oliveira Serra Pinto and Gerson de Souza Barbosa did not conform to the proposed object, as the deponents had given their opinions on the domestic investigation but had not reported on facts of which they were aware as a result of their duties. The Commission claimed that the statement by Tálita de Borba Maranhão e Silva, even though it had been proffered by the State in the final listing of witnesses and expert witnesses, nonetheless had not been solicited by the Court. It gave no opinion on the statement by Plácido Medeiros de Souza. 29. On January 30, 2006, the representatives filed their comments on testimony submitted by the State. They claimed that the statement by Tálita de Borba Maranhão e Silva should not be considered, as it produced a procedural imbalance between the parties. Nevertheless, they submitted several collateral comments regarding the content of the statement. They also made observations on the statements rendered by Augusto César Oliveira Serra Pinto and Gerson de Souza Barbosa. In particular, they felt that the statement by Gerson de Souza Barbosa was patently biased, as the deponent claimed that for several years he had personally observed and participated in the search for the truth and in identifying the perpetrators of the murder of Gilson Nogueira de Carvalho; in his statement, he unconditionally defended the actions of the police in investigating the case. 30. On January 27, 2006, the State challenged the opinion signed by Luiz Flávio Gomes and Alice Bianchini, claiming that the expert witness failed to provide an objective, impartial evaluation of the facts surrounding the police and judicial investigation of the death of Gilson Nogueira de Carvalho. The State requested, if this opinion was not suppressed from the body of evidence, that it be disqualified as expert testimony and taken instead as a personal opinion. On January 31, 2006, in view of the clarification submitted by Luiz Flávio Gomes (supra para. 26), the State asked that this opinion be suppressed from the trial documents, because the submission by expert witness Gomes was time-barred; the opinion as given lacked technical content, and Alice Bianchini had not been proposed by the representatives to provide expert witness in the case of Gilson Nogueira de Carvalho. 31. On February 8, 2006, the Court held a public hearing. Appearing before the Court were: a) for the Inter-American Commission: Evelio Fernández, Ignacio J. Álvarez, Víctor H. Madrigal Borloz, Leonardo Jun Ferreira Hidaka and Lilly Ching; b) for the representatives: