6 costs. Likewise, by means of said Order, the President informed the parties that June 10, 2005 would be the deadline to submit their closing written arguments on the merits, reparations, and costs. 25. On April 11, 2005, the representatives submitted their observations on the reports of expert witnesses Mario Rodríguez-Hurtado, José Rodríguez-Robinson, and Carlos Rivera-Paz. 26. On April 12, 2005, the State submitted evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the case as requested by the President (supra para. 22), which consisted of the following documents: case file No. 069-03 against Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas for the “crime of terrorism;” case file No. 001-96 against Wilson García-Asto for the “crime against public peace –terrorism– to the detriment of the State,” and the legal rules applied to the proceedings instituted before Peruvian courts against the alleged victims (infra para. 89). Furthermore, Peru informed that it was not in possession of “a written document cont[aining] the expert report” of Carlos Rivera-Paz, whereby it requested the Court to forward said document. 27. On April 13 and 18, 2005, the Inter-American Commission submitted the affidavits given by Celia Asto-Urbano and Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas, respectively. 28. On April 21, 2005, the Secretariat, on instructions from the President, forwarded the State a certified copy of the verbatim transcription of the expert opinion of Carlos Rivera-Paz given before the Court at the public hearing on the merits, reparations, and costs held on July 2, 2004 in the case of De La Cruz Flores, so that it could file the observations it might deem fit. 29. On April 27, 2005, the Inter-American Commission pointed out that the State, at the time it submitted the evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the case requested by the President (supra para. 22), failed to include the testimony of “police officers Commander […] Juan de Jesús Vargas-Ramos and Juan Hilmer GonzálezSandoval […], in which they described the actions taken by the police in the property located at Urbanización Canto Rey, block ‘K’, third lot, in the District of San Juan de Lurigancho, and resulting in the detention of Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas, Héctor AponteSinarahua or Arturo Guzmán-Alarcón and Isabel [C]ristina Moreno-Tarazona.” 30. On April 28, 2005, the Secretariat, on instructions from the President, requested the State to forward the documentary evidence detailed by the InterAmerican Commission in the brief of April 27, 2005 (supra para. 29). 31. On May 3, 2005, the State submitted the observations on the affidavits given by Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas and Celia Asto-Urbano. 32. On May 5, 2005, the representatives pointed out that they had no comments on the affidavits made Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas and Celia Asto-Urbano. 33. On May 10, 2005, the Court heard in public hearing the testimony of the witnesses proposed by the Commission, the arguments of the Commission, the representatives, and the State on the merits, reparations, and costs. There appeared