7 37. On December 22, 2005, the common intervenors submitted their brief with requests, arguments and evidence (hereinafter “requests and arguments”), attaching documentary evidence and offering testimonial and expert evidence. 38. On January 23, 2006, Adolfo Fernández Saré, Jorge Ore León, Víctor Ampuero Ampuero, Telmo Barba Ureña, Ricardo Hernández Fernández, Ronald Revello Infante and Carlos la Cruz Crespo submitted a “brief with requests, arguments and evidence within the period established by the Court to this end.” On February 3, 2006, the Secretariat reiterated to them that the designation of the common intervenor had been decided by the Court on October 20, 2005 (supra para. 34), and that it was not in order to make any change in the decision; according the brief would not be processed. 39. On February 23, 2006, Peru presented its brief with preliminary objections, in answer to the application and with observations on the requests and arguments, attaching documentary evidence and offering expert evidence. 40. On April 4, 2006, on the instructions of the President and in the terms of Article 45(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, the Secretariat requested the parties to forward documentation and information to be considered as useful evidence by April 18, 2006, at the latest. On that date, and also on April 25 and May 2, 2006, the Commission, Peru, and the common intervenors, respectively, presented some of this evidence. 41. On April 7 and 11, 2006, the Commission and the common intervenors, respectively, submitted their arguments on the preliminary objections filed by the State (supra para. 39). 42. On April 12, 2006, the common intervenors requested the substitution of Luis Miguel Sirumbal Ramos, offered as an expert witness, by Paúl Noriega Torero. On May 2, they advised that this substitution was requested because the former was abroad. 43. On May 8, 2006, the State declared, inter alia, that Paúl Noriega Torero (supra para. 42) did not have the appropriate curriculum vitae to determine measures of compensation. On May 24 that year, the common intervenors referred to these comments by the State. 44. On May 17, 2006, the President issued an Order in which he called upon Ricardo Julio Callirgos Tarazona, Margarita Agustina Álvarez Chavarri (widow of Purizaca), María de los Ángeles Chang Begazo, Jacqueline Magallán Galoc, Frida Luisa Salas Sobrino and Luisa Chara Pacheco, proposed as witnesses by the common intervenors, to provide their testimonies through statements made before notary public (affidavits). He also called upon Paúl Noriega Torero, proposed as an expert witness by the common intervenors, and Rosario Teresa Cordero Borja, proposed as an expert witness by the State, to provide their expert evidence by statements made before notary public (affidavits). In addition the President convened the Commission, the common intervenors and the State to a public hearing to be held at the seat of the Supreme Court of Justice of El Salvador starting on June 27, 2006, to hear their final oral arguments on the preliminary objections and merits, reparations and costs, as well as the expert evidence of Samuel Abad Yupanqui, proposed as an expert witness by the Commission. The President also informed the parties that they had a