Order, the President asked that the State present certain documentary evidence, pursuant to Article 58(b) of the Rules of Procedure. He also convened the parties to a public hearing to receive the testimony of two witnesses, one proposed by the representatives and the other by the State, and two expert witnesses, one proposed by the Inter-American Commission and the other by the State, as well as the observations and final oral arguments of the Inter-American Commission, the representatives and the State, respectively, on the merits and possible reparations and costs in the instant case. 8. On February 4, 2011, the representatives forwarded a piece of documentary evidence that allegedly related to supervening facts relevant to the case. On February 14, 2011, the State presented its observations concerning the alleged supervening evidence presented by the representatives, and also provided the documentary evidence requested by the President of the Court in his Order (supra para. 7), together with its observations on the latter. The Inter-American Commission did not submit observations on either the alleged supervening evidence or the helpful evidence that the President of the Court had asked the State to provide in his Order (supra para. 7). 9. On February 16, 2011, the representatives and the State forwarded the affidavits. On February 28, 2011, the State and the representatives submitted their observations on the statements forwarded by the other party. On that occasion, the representatives presented their observations on the helpful evidence presented by the State (supra paras. 7 and 8). In addition, on February 28, 2011, the Inter-American Commission indicated that it had no observations to make concerning the affidavits forwarded by the State and the representatives. 10. The public hearing was held on February 21 and 22, 2011, during the Court’s ninetieth regular session which took place at the seat of the Court.9 During this hearing the Court, based on the provisions of Article 58(a) of its Rules of Procedure, required the parties to present certain helpful documentation and explanations. 11. On March 8, 2011, the President of the Court requested the parties to submit certain helpful information, documentation and explanations, some of it related to the determination of the alleged victims.10 12. On March 23, 2011, the representatives and the State forwarded their final written arguments and the Inter-American Commission presented its final written observations on this case. In addition, on that occasion, the representatives and the considered that they induced answers, which is contrary to the provisions of Article 50(5) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure; furthermore, questions relating to the personal opinion of the witnesses concerning certain facts were not admitted. 9 The following persons appeared at the hearing: (a) for the Inter-American Commission: María Silvia Guillén, Commissioner, and Lilly Ching and Christina Cerna, legal advisers; (b) for the representatives: Alicia Barbani Duarte, María del Huerto Breccia and María Magdalena Curbelo Carrasco, and (c) for the State: Carlos Mata Prates, Agent; Daniel Artecona Gulla and Viviana Pérez Benech, deputy agents. 10 The evidence requested included the following: to determine the alleged victims, the Inter-American Commission was asked to forward an individualized list of the persons it had identified as alleged victims in its application brief, and the Inter-American Commission and the representatives of the alleged victims were asked to forward an explanation or position in relation to the fact that in their brief with pleadings, motions and evidence, the representatives had added individuals as alleged victims, who were not included on the Inter-American Commission’s list of alleged victims; the Inter-American Commission was asked to indicate whether all the alleged victims had filed petitions under the procedure established in article 31 of Law 17,613; the Commission, the State and the representatives were asked to indicate whether there were any alleged victims whose petition was rejected in the administrative proceedings or in the judicial proceedings under administrative law, even though they had offered evidence of their alleged instruction not to renew the certificates of deposit of the Trade and Commerce Bank, and they were asked to indicate their names and the documentation that supported this response; and the State was asked to forward to copy of the decisions adopted by the Board of Directors of the Central Bank of Uruguay in relation to all the alleged victims indicated in the application, as well as of any other relevant domestic judgment that had been delivered following the presentation of their answer to the application. 5