10 Patricia Fuenmayor Gómez and John Arturo Cárdenas Mesa, of the Grupo Interdisciplinario por los Derechos Humanos; and Carlos Rodríguez Mejía and Luz Marina Monzón Cifuentes, of the Comisión Colombiana de Juristas; and (c) for the State: Felipe Piquero Villegas, agent; Luz Marina Gil García, deputy agent; Clara Inés Vargas Silva, Gladis Álvarez Arango, Martha Carrillo, Julio Aníbal Riaño, Carlos Rodríguez, Dionisio Araujo and Héctor Adolfo Sintura Varela, advisers. Also, one witness proposed by the Inter-American Commission; two witnesses proposed by the representatives; and Carlos Saavedra Prado, proposed as a witness by the State. In addition, Rodrigo Uprimny Yepes, proposed by the Inter-American Commission and Hernando Torres Corredor, proposed by the State, appeared as expert witnesses. 43. During the public hearing the parties provided various documents (infra paras. 118 and 119). 44. On September 30, 2005, the representatives and the State were asked to forward several documents as helpful evidence and their respective final written arguments by October 24, 2005, at the latest. The State was asked to provide updated information on the La Granja and El Aro criminal, administrative and disciplinary proceedings. The State and the representatives were also asked to forward: (a) a complete updated list with the names of all the persons who had allegedly been displaced owing to the facts of the instant case; (b) information on whether these persons had received help or support of any kind from the State due to this situation; and (c) information on whether any of the alleged victims or their next of kin had filed actions for protection of their constitutional rights (tutela) or under administrative law in relation to the internal displacement. Lastly, the representatives were asked to provide “a description of the damage suffered by each of the alleged victims listed in the brief with requests, arguments and evidence owing to the alleged violation of Article 21 of the American Convention (Right to Property),” and also copies of some people’s identity documents. 45. On October 4, 2005, the Commission requested the Court to maintain the confidentiality of the identity of certain persons who provided testimony by sworn statements before notary public or at the public hearing before the Court. In this regard, on the instructions of the President, the representatives and the State were granted until October 19, 2005, to present any observations they deemed pertinent. Neither the representatives nor the State submitted the respective observations. 46. On October 20, 2005, the representatives requested an additional four days for submitting their final written arguments. On the instructions of the President, the representatives were informed that, in keeping with the fourteenth operative paragraph of the President’s order of July 28, 2005 (supra para. 23), the time limit for presenting the final written arguments was non-extendible. Consequently, the representatives were asked to present the said brief with final arguments as soon as possible. 47. On October 24, 2005, the State submitted the helpful evidence requested on September 30, 2005, and also its final written arguments. The original of the briefs and their attachments were received by the Secretariat on October 27, 2005. 48. On October 24, 2005, the Inter-American Commission submitted its final written arguments.