6 24. On January 25, 1996, the Court disallowed the preliminary objections lodged by the State. 25. On June 2, 1995, the State submitted its answer to the petition, in which it declared that it respected human rights and had profound faith in the inter-American system. It also said that a judgment against it would be "unjust, and discount the State’s attitude toward the events and its reaction manifest in the Law and through its institutions. The Commission has disregarded the substantial changes made in its legislation." It also stated that the State itself had provided the evidence on which the case is based, thus demonstrating its commitment to human rights. It declared that "[w]ithout the cooperation of the State of Guatemala there would be no case to hear, a fact that the Honorable Tribunal should bear in mind, since the issue is the condemnation of the State." In its petition, the State requested that the Court declare "[o]ut of order the petition lodged by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights against the State of Guatemala with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights" and to refuse to award costs. 26. On September 23, 1995, the President requested that the Inter-American Commission and the State inform the Court whether they were interested in submitting, pursuant to Article 29(2) of the Rules of Procedure then in force, other pleadings in the written proceeding on the merits of this case. The Commission replied to the request in the affirmative on October 2, 1995; consequently, the President granted the Commission until December 3, 1995, to submit its brief in answer, and the State two months from receipt of that document to submit its brief of rejoinder. 27. The Commission submitted its brief in answer to the Court in Spanish on December 15, 1995. On December 18 of that year, the brief was transmitted to the State, which did not submit its brief of rejoinder to the Tribunal. 28. On July 9, 1997, the President summoned the representatives of Guatemala and the Commission to a public hearing to be held at the seat of the Court on September 22, 1997, in order to hear the statements of witnesses Sonia Aracelly del CidHernández, María Elizabeth Chinchilla, María Idelfonsa Morales de Paniagua, Alberto Antonio Paniagua, Jean-Marie Simon, Raquel de Jesús-Solórzano, Marvin Vásquez, Blanca Lidia Zamora de Paniagua, Julio Enrique Caballeros-Seigne, Carlos Odilio Estrada-Gil and Felicito Olíva-Arias, all proposed by the Inter-American Commission; the reports of experts Ken Anderson, Phil Heyman, Robert H. Kirschner, Roberto Arturo Lemus, Anne Manuel and Christian Tomuschat proposed by the Inter-American Commission; and the reports of experts Napoleón Gutiérrez-Vargas, Alberto HerrarteGonzález, Arturo Martínez-Gálvez and Mario Guillermo Ruíz-Wong, proposed by the State. 29. On September 9, 1997, the State submitted to the Court a brief in which it declared that, for reasons of force majeure, Mr. Mario Guillermo Ruíz-Wong and Mr. Alberto Herrarte-González would be unable to appear at the public hearings called by the Court and offered instead experts Ramiro de León-Carpio and Alfonso NovalesAguirre, who would report on the human rights situation in Guatemala, and experts José Francisco de Mata-Vela, Eduardo Mayora-Alvarado and Carlos Enrique LunaVillacorta, who would report on the changes made in Guatemalan legislation by the new Code of Penal Procedure and on the relevant jurisprudence. 30. On September 12, 1997, the Inter-American Commission submitted its position on the State’s new offer of experts made on September 9 of that year. The Commission stated that it would not contest the appearance of the experts offered to replace those who, for unforeseen reasons, were unable to appear before the Court, provided that their reports were restricted to the topics indicated in the brief in answer