7 Lastly, the representatives asked the Court to order the State to adopt a series of measures of pecuniary and non-pecuniary reparation and to pay the costs and expenses arising from processing the case before the inter-American system for the protection of human rights. 19. On January 14, 2005, the State submitted its brief filing preliminary objections, answering the application and with observations on the requests and arguments brief of the representatives (hereinafter “answer to the application”), attaching documentary evidence and offering testimonial and expert evidence. In this brief, the State “acknowledge[d] its international responsibility for the violation of the obligation to respect rights in relation to the violation of the rights to life [Article 4 of the American Convention], humane treatment [Article 5 of the American Convention], personal liberty [Article 7 of the American Convention] and property [Article 21 of the American Convention]” of those persons indicated in the application (supra paras. 1 and 3). 20. The State indicated that “consequent with the facts and violations acknowledged in the answer to the application, it [was] prepared to submit a proposal for reparations drawn up in collaboration with the petitioners who duly accredit[ed] their standing.” The State also “indicate[d] that it had not failed to comply with any Convention obligation arising” from Articles 6 (Freedom from Slavery), 19 (Rights of the Child), 22 (Freedom of Movement and Residence), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention. It also filed a preliminary objection based on the alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies. 21. On February 24, 2005, the representatives submitted arguments on the preliminary objection filed by the State. 22. On March 7, 2005, the Commission forwarded its written arguments on the preliminary objection filed by the State. 23. On July 28, 2005, the parties were notified of the order of the President of the Court in which he decided to convene them to a public hearing at the seat of the Court on September 22, 2005, to hear the statements of the witnesses and expert witnesses proposed by the parties (infra para. 42), and also the final oral arguments on the preliminary objection and merits, reparations and costs. In this order, the President requested the seven persons1 proposed as witnesses by the Commission; the ten persons2 proposed as witnesses by the representatives, and Bjorn Pettersson and Alfredo De los Ríos, proposed as expert witnesses by the representatives, and Hernán Sanín Posada, proposed as an expert witness by the State, to submit their testimony and expert evidence in statements made before notary public (affidavits). In the order, the President rejected, as time-barred, the testimony of Jaime Jaramillo Panesso, proposed by the State, and requested the State to forward the name of the person whose statement it had proposed in his capacity as Deputy Prosecutor 1 The representatives and the witnesses themselves requested that their names should remain confidential for reasons of safety. 2 The Inter-American Commission and the witnesses themselves requested that their names should remain confidential for reasons of safety.