8 Martín Gregorio Oré Guerrero, as the aggrieved party, in order to prove that “an investigation is being processed before that office regarding the falsification of the signatures” on the powers of attorney of three of the alleged victims. 42. On August 21, 2002, the representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin forwarded a communication, in which they requested the Court to authorize the participation of Walter Albán Peralta in the public hearing as an expert witness, rather than as a witness. In a note of August 22, 2002, the Secretariat requested them to forward the curriculum vitae of Walter Albán Peralta so that the Court could decide on their request. On August 23, 2002, the representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin presented the said curriculum vitae. 43. On August 23, 2002, the Secretariat, on the instructions of the President, granted until August 27, 2002, for the Commission and the State to present their comments on the request of the representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin mentioned in the preceding paragraph. 44. On August 27, 2002, the State presented a communication stating its opposition to the request of the representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin that the statement of Walter Albán Peralta should be considered expert evidence and not testimonial evidence. In the same communication, Peru affirmed that, in accordance with the provisions of Article 21(1) of the Rules of Procedure, it had designated Mario Pasco Cosmópolis as Deputy Agent in this case. The following day, the Commission forwarded a communication in which it stated that it had no objection to the said request of the representatives. 45. On August 27 and 28, 2002, the representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin advised that Walter Albán Peralta would be unable to take part in the public hearing. In his place, they requested that Daniel Soria Luján should be summoned as an expert witness and, to this end, they forwarded his curriculum vitae. 46. On August 29, 2002, the Secretariat, on the instructions of all the judges of the Court, informed the parties that the Court had rejected the request of the representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin to summon Daniel Soria Luján to provide an expert report at the public hearing. 47. On August 30, 2002, Carlos Rafael Urquilla Bonilla, representative of the organization, Human Rights in the Americas, presented an amicus curiae brief. 48. On September 2, 2002, the State presented a communication in which it referred to the allegation of failure to exhaust domestic remedies contained in the answer to the application. In this respect, it indicated that “in the instant case, any discussion of the validity of the application, in view of non-exhaustion of the procedure indicated in the internal jurisdiction of Peru, should be decided in conjunction with the judgment and taking into consideration all the evidence contributed by the parties.” 49. The same day, Peru presented a communication in which it set out its considerations regarding the proposal for a friendly settlement presented by the representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin to the Executive Secretariat of the National Human Rights Council of the Ministry of Justice of Peru, and the amicus curiae presented by the Office of the Ombudsman while the case was being processed before the Commission (supra paras. 39 and 41).