5 (affidavits), which must be sent by the Commission and the representatives no later than May 9, 2005. Likewise, it requested that the representatives and the State present, on that same date, certain documents as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case. Besides, the President granted a non-postponable term of 7 days, as of the date it received said affidavits, for the Commission, the representatives, and the State to present the observations they consider appropriate. Similarly, the President informed the parties that they had until May 27, 2005 to present their final written allegations with regard to the merits, reparations, and costs. Finally, in response to the request made by the representatives that it was “important that the decision of the […] Court, with regard to not summoning a public hearing, [be] carefully [re]valuated taking into consideration the importance of presenting their arguments in voce and being able to directly refute the State’s positions, thus affirming the principle of the presence of the parties to dispute,” the President considered that it was not appropriate to agree to said request, based on the following: […] according to that stated in Article 40 of the Rules of Procedure, the President “shall call such hearings as may be necessary”, which expresses a discretional power of the President to summon the parties to public hearings in cases with objects and circumstances that indicate that the exercise of said right results appropriate and necessary. The above is also deduced from the reading of several provisions of the Rules of Procedure that include the possibility of calling a hearing on preliminary objections, provisional measures, receipt of evidence or procedures of advisory opinions.1 Besides, the power referred to is consistent with the regulation of said practice in other international courts of the same nature.2 The exercise of said right results even more appropriate before the need to adequately attend the cases subject to the consideration of the Court, whose number has increased considerably and continues to increase constantly. If the Court or the President decide not to summon a public hearing, this may not be considered a lack of observance or a limitation to the right to a defense and presence of the parties, who maintain their opportunity to present their arguments in their final written allegations. In this sense, the fact that this type of practices is authorized is in benefit of the group of pending cases before the Tribunal, in attention to the fact that the Court does not meet permanently. […] 24. On May 13, 2005, the Inter-American Commission sent, after having granted an extension, the statements given by the expert witnesses Eduardo Montealegre Lynett and Alberto Martín Binder before a notary public (affidavits). 25. On May 13, 2005 the representatives presented, after having been granted an extension, the documents requested as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case, and the statements offered by the expert witnesses Alejandro E. Álvarez, César Barrientos Pellecer, and Rodolfo Kepfer Rodríguez before a notary public (affidavits). Similarly, they forwarded the statement given by Mr. Fermín Ramírez on May 3, 2005 before the notary Rafael Francisco Cetina Gutiérrez “through video recording”, as well as the document in which the mentioned notary gives faith that the video 1 Cfr. Article 25(7) (“The Court, or its President if the Court is not sitting, may convoke the parties to a public hearing on provisional measures”); Article 37(5) (“When the Court considers it indispensable, it may convene a special hearing on the preliminary objections, after which it shall rule on the objections”); Article 45(4) (“The Court may, at any stage of the proceedings: […] Commission one or more of its members to hold hearings, including preliminary hearings, either at the seat of the Court or elsewhere, for the purpose of gathering evidence”); and Article 63(4) (“At the conclusion of the written proceedings, the Court shall decide whether there should be oral proceedings and shall fix the date for such a hearing, unless it delegates the latter task to the President […]”), all of the Rules of Procedure. 2 Cfr. Article 59(3) and 59(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Court of Human Rights: “The Chamber may decide, either upon request of a party or by its own initiative, to summon a hearing on the merits of the case if it considers that the exercise of its functions under the Convention so requires it;” and “the President of the Chamber may, when appropriate, set the written and oral proceedings” (free translation of the Secretariat).