43. On 20 September 2013 the Secretariat requested the Complainant through letter referenced ACHPR/COMM/383/10/DJI/1032/13, and the Respondent State through Note Verbale referenced ACHPR/COMM/DJI/383/10/1031/13 to send the names and state the functions of persons who would appear on their respective behalf at the oral hearing. 44. On 25 September 2013 the Complainant submitted a Summary of New Facts; a Declaration of Mr Crofton Black together with Annexures; Report of the Open Society Foundations titled Globalising Torture: CIA Secret Detention and Extraordinary Rendition, February 2013; and a link to the online Report of the Constitution Project titled The Constitution Project’s Task Force on Detainee Treatment, 2013. 45. On 26 September 2013 the Secretariat received a request from the Complainant in accordance with Rule 100 of the Rules of Procedure that Mr. John Sifton be invited for examination as an expert witness on behalf of the Complainant during the oral hearing. 46. On 7 October 2013 the Secretariat wrote the named expert witness inviting him to attend at the oral hearing. The Respondent State was duly informed of Mr Sifton’s attendance and role during the oral hearing by a Note Verbale dated 7 October 2013 referenced? ACHPR/COMM/DJI/383/10/1021/13. 47. The Secretariat subsequently received the full list of persons that would be appearing for the Respondent State and the Complainant by their respective letters of 11 and 16 October 2013 respectively. 48. On 25 October 2013 the Secretariat further received from the Respondent State Observations of the Republic of Djibouti on Complainant’s Final Response on Admissibility and New Facts, attaching two exhibits being a Picture of Aircraft Registration No 5H-TZE from Tanzania Civil Aviation Authority, and the Republic of Djibouti’s Code de Procedure Penale. 49. The oral hearing was eventually held on 2 November 2013 during the 54th Ordinary Session held from 22 October to 5 November 2013. 50. By a letter dated 4 November 2013 which was after the oral hearing but before the 54th Ordinary Session was concluded, the Complainant purported to file further observations on admissibility in response to the Respondent State’s submissions during the oral hearing. The Complainant’s post-hearing observations attached a further document being the Declaration of Mr. Sam Raphael with eight exhibits. 8