3 5. On December 16, 1997, the Inter-American Commission informed the Court that it had named Mr. Domingo E. Acevedo, Mr. Carlos Ayala-Corao and Mr. Alvaro Tirado-Mejía as its delegates in the instant case. On June 18, 1998, Marcela Matamoros, who had been designated as the Commission’s assistant for the public hearing on preliminary objections, advised the Court that she was withdrawing from the case. 6. On January 27, 1998, the Commission requested a thirty-day extension of the deadline set by the President in his order of December 10, 1997, in order to submit its brief on the compensation and costs in the instant case. On January 28 and 29, 1998, the President extended the deadlines set for the Commission and the victim’s next of kin to February 25 of that year, and the State’s deadline to May 11, 1998. 7. On February 25, 1998, the Commission and the victim’s next of kin each submitted to the Court briefs on reparations, with the corresponding evidence, which were then forwarded to the State on March 12 of that year. 8. On March 9, 1998, the President sent a summons to the victim’s next of kin, to the Inter-American Commission and to Peru, for a public hearing on reparations, which was to be held at the seat of the Court on June 9, 1998. 9. On March 11, 1998, the Secretary requested that the State submit the following documents: the 1991 sworn earnings statement of Mr. Cronwell Pierre Castillo-Castillo, a copy of the report prepared by the Office of the Inspector General of Police concerning the operation in which Mr. Ernesto Rafael Castillo-Páez had been detained on orders from the Ministry of the Interior, and any other intelligence relative to the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of Ernesto Rafael Castillo-Páez and his whereabouts. By note of May 29, 1998, the State informed the Court that there was a legal impediment to supplying Mr. Cronwell Pierre CastilloCastillo’s sworn statement. The State also failed to supply the other documents that had been requested, despite the fact that the Secretariat had repeated the Court’s request on July 21 and again on August 26, 1998. 10. On March 24, 1998, the State filed a brief wherein it argued that the case should be closed since inasmuch as it had not received the reparations briefs of either the victim’s next of kin or of the Commission. The next day, the Secretariat informed the State that the reparations briefs had been submitted by the victim’s next of kin and the Commission on February 25 of that year and had been forwarded to the State on March 12. 11. On April 20, 1998, the Secretariat requested that the victim’s next of kin and the State indicate how many witnesses and experts they would call at the public hearing on June 9, 1998 (supra 8) and what the purpose of their testimony or expert testimony would be. Also, on instructions from the President, they were advised that "for the sake of procedural economy and speed, they [should] give particular consideration to the possibility of submitting some testimony and expert testimony in the form of sworn statements." 12. By note of April 29, 1998, the victim’s next of kin petitioned the Court to extend the deadline they were given to submit the "definitive list of witnesses" and to establish a deadline for submitting the sworn statements from the parents of the victim and from his sister, as well as the corresponding expert testimony.