10. Public hearing. On April 16, 2013, the acting President issued an Order, 7 in which he convened the Inter-American Commission, the representative, and the State to a public hearing to receive the final oral arguments of the representative and of the State, and the final oral observations of the Commission, on the preliminary objection and eventual merits, reparations and costs. In this Order, he also required that the affidavits of six witnesses and three expert witnesses be received by affidavit, and these were submitted by the parties and the Commission on May 7 and 8, 2013. The representative and the State were given the opportunity to pose questions and make observations on the deponents offered by the opposing party. In addition, the said Order 8 summoned two witnesses, two expert witnesses and one deponent for information purposes to testify during the public hearing. The public hearing was held on May 16, 2013, during the ninetyninth regular session of the Court, which took place at its seat. 9 During this hearing, the parties presented certain helpful evidence. 11. Final written arguments and observations. On June 14 and 16, 2013, the parties and the Commission presented their final written arguments and observations, respectively. 12. Helpful evidence and information, and supervening evidence on expenses. Together with their final written arguments, and on June 24, 2013, the representative and the State submitted part of the information, explanations and helpful evidence requested by the judges of the Court (supra para. 10). Also, on July 29, 2013, the representative presented documentation concerning the expenses incurred following the presentation of the final written arguments. Also, on August 1 and November 6, 2013, the Secretariat of the Court, on the instructions of the acting President, requested the State to present certain helpful documents and explanations, which were presented on August 14 and 21 and November 11, 2013. 10 13. Observations on the helpful information and evidence, and on the supervening evidence on expenses. On July 17 and 22 and August 14, 2013, the parties and the Commission presented their observations on the helpful information, explanations and evidence presented by the other parties in response to the requests of the judges of the Court (supra para. 10) and, in the case of the State, also on the expense vouchers submitted by the representative on July 29, 2013. In their respective briefs, the representative and the State included general observations on the final written arguments of the opposing party and, in the case of the State, on the final written observations of 11 the Commission also. Lastly, on September 3 and November 19, 2013, the representative and the 7 Cf. Case of J. v. Peru. Order of the acting President of the Court of April 16, 2013. Available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/j_16_04_13.pdf 8 In his Order of April 16, 2013, the acting President admitted Stefan Trechsel, expert witness proposed by the InterAmerican Commission, and summoned him to testify at the public hearing. However, on April 25, 2013, the Commission withdrew this expertise indicating that Mr. Trechsel “ha[d] indicated that he would be unable to appear at the public hearing, owing to professional commitments he had accepted previously and that could not be postponed.” 9 There appeared at this hearing: (a) for the Inter-American Commission: Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, Deputy Executive Secretary, and Silvia Serrano Guzmán, Secretariat specialist; (b) for the presumed victim: the representative and the lawyers Guglielmo Verdirame and Christine Chinkin, and (c) for the State: Luis Alberto Huerta Guerrero, Special Supranational Public Prosecutor, Agent; Carlos Miguel Reaño Balarezo, Deputy Agent, and Doris Margarita Yalle Jorges, both lawyers from the Office of the Special Supranational Public Prosecutor. 10 In particular, on August 1, 2013, the State was asked to present documents and explanations on the applicable laws in force during all the events of the case, as well as on the criminal proceedings opened against Ms. J. Subsequently, on November 6, 2013, the State was asked to forward a copy of Legislative Decree No. 638 published on April 27, 1991, promulgating the Code of Criminal Procedure. 11 On that occasion, the representative, also, presented detailed arguments and explanations on the application of article 135 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to this specific case, together with other documents. On the instructions of the acting President for this case, the representative was reminded that the pertinent procedural occasion for forwarding evidence to the Court was regulated in Articles 35(1), 40(2), 41(1) and 42(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. Any evidence that is not presented at those opportunities can only be admitted, exceptionally, when the exceptions indicated in Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure are complied with, namely: force majeure, grave impediment or supervening facts; and also, exceptionally, when it has been requested by the Court in application of Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure. The acting President considered that the 7