5 18. On April 22, 2004 Honduras informed this Tribunal that the parties involved in the case “had started a process of amicable solution, through [OFRANEH], result of which it would inform the Court in a timely manner.” On April 12, 2005 the representatives stated that OFRANEH had presented to the State a proposal for an amicable solution on January 13, 2004; once again on February 7, 2005 OFRANEH and CEJIL presented to the State a proposal for an amicable solution of the case. They also stated that on February 17, 2005 Honduras acknowledged receipt of the same and informed that “it [would] send [its] comments to the same […].” 19. On May 11, 2005 the President called upon Messrs. Secundino Torres Amaya, Juan Edgardo García, Ernesta4 Cayetano Zúñiga, and Andrés Pavón Murillo, proposed as witnesses by the Commission; Gilberto Antonio Sánchez Chandías, proposed as a witness by the representatives, and José Mario Salgado Montalbán, Dennis Heriberto Rodríguez Rodríguez, Darwin Valladares, and José Roberto Cabrera Martínez, proposed as witnesses by the State, to offer their testimonies through statements offered before Notary Public (affidavit). It also called upon Mrs. Débora S. Munczek, proposed as an expert witness by the representatives and Mr. Dennis A. Castro Bobadilla, proposed as an expert witness by the State, which offered expert statements before notary public (affidavit). Likewise, the President summoned the parties to a public hearing to be held in the venue of the Inter-American Court as of June 28, 2005, in order to hear the testimonial statements of Alfredo López Álvarez, Teresa Reyes Reyes, and Gregoria Flores Martínez, proposed by the Inter-American Commission and the representatives; the statement of Álvaro Raúl Cerrato Arias, proposed by the State, and the expert opinion of Milton Jiménez Puerto, proposed as expert witness by the Commission and the representatives, as well as the final closing arguments on merits and reparations and costs. The President also informed the parties that they had time until July 29, 2005 to present their final written arguments with regard to the merits of the case and the reparations and costs. 20. On May 20, 2005 the representatives informed that they desisted from the expert opinion of Mrs. Débora S. Munzcek. 21. On June 1, 2005 the Inter-American Commission presented the four statements given before a notary public (affidavit) (supra para. 19). 22. On June 1, 2005 the State presented three sworn statements of the witnesses, given before a notary public (affidavits), and stated that “it was impossible to obtain a statement from the witness Darwin Valladares, [and that] the same situation occurred with the expert Dennis Castro Bobadilla” (supra para. 19). 23. On June 8, 2005, after an extension, the representatives presented the statement given by the witness Gilberto Sánchez Chandías before a notary public (supra para. 19). 24. On the 17th and 20th day of June 2005 the representatives and the Commission presented, respectively, observations to the different statements given before a notary public offered by the State and the representatives. 4 This Tribunal points out that in diverse documents processed in the present case, Mrs. Cayetano Zúñiga appears indistinctly with the name of “Ernesta” or “Ernestina”. For the effects of the present Judgment we will use the name “Ernesta”.