12 David Padilla, Deputy Executive Secretary Denise Gilman, Advisor Viviana Krsticevic, Assistant; and Raquel Aldana-Pindell, Assistant Witnesses proposed by the Commission: Mario Ernesto Sosa Orellana Acisclo Valladares Molina Ismael Salvatierra Arroyo Luis Alberto Gómez Guillermo Jesús Efraín Aguirre Loarca Simeón Cum Chutá; and Julio Alberto Soto Bilbao. Although they had been summoned by the Court, the following witnesses, proposed by the Commission, did not appear to give their statements: Rolando Edeberto Barahona Margarito Sarceño Medrano Julio Cintrón Gálvez Julio Roberto Alpírez Gregorio Ávila; and José Víctor Cordero Cardona. 55. During the public hearing held on November 22, 1998, the State presented a copy of a certificate issued by the Civil Registry of Nuevo San Carlos, Department of Retalhuleu, on October 26, 1998, and copy of a letter of November 20, 1998, signed by Julio Roberto Alpírez. 56. On December 4, 1998, the State offered as evidence the documents mentioned by four of the witnesses during the public hearing of November 22 and 23, 1998. On December 11, 1998, the Secretariat informed the State that some of the documents offered were illegible or incomplete. On January 26, 1999, the Secretariat again requested the missing documents. On February 1 and March 18, 1999, the State sent some of the missing documents. On February 3 and March 23, 1999, the Secretariat indicated to Guatemala that some of the documentation offered was missing. At the time this judgment was issued, the State had not sent any communication in this regard. 57. On December 4, 1998, the Commission stated that the documents contributed by Guatemala at the public hearing of November 22, 1998 (supra 54), were not truly supervening, and that they should have been submitted with the answer to the application; at the same time it pointed out a series of anomalies in these documents. 58. With regard to the last point, on December 10, 1998, the President informed the Commission that, during the public hearing, it had been explained that “any evidence ha[d] to be submitted through the appropriate channels; and, the documents offered had not been delivered to the Secretariat of the Court on that occasion”. Moreover, the Commission was informed that, before any document sent by the State was included, it would be forwarded to the Commission so that it could make the pertinent observations. On January 12, 1999, the Commission reiterated