7. On November 25, 2011, the Inter-American Commission and the representative6 presented their observations on the preliminary objection and the partial acknowledgment of responsibility made by the State. 8. Following the presentation of the main briefs (supra paras. 1, 5 and 6), as well as other briefs forwarded by the parties, the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”) issued an Order dated January 25, 2012,7 in which he ruled on the State’s objections to the expert evidence offered and the representatives’ objection to one of the experts offered by the State, and required that the testimony of one witness and four expert witnesses be received by affidavit. These affidavits were presented by the parties and the Commission on February 20, 21 and 28, 2012. In addition, in the same Order, the President summoned the parties and the Commission to a public hearing (infra para. 9). 9. The public hearing was held at the seat of the Court on February 24, 2012, during its ninety-fourth regular session.8 During the hearing, the testimony of two presumed victims and one expert witness were received, together with the final oral observations and arguments of the Inter-American Commission, the representative, and the State. 10. The Court received three amici curiae briefs from: the Public Action Group of the Faculty of Jurisprudence of the Universidad de Rosario;9 the Legal Clinic for Social Justice and the Master’s Program in “Human Rights, Democracy, and International Justice” of the Universidad de Valencia, Spain,10 and the organization, Article 19.11 The State asked the Court not to admit the latter because it was time-barred (infra paras. 67 and 68). 11. On March 26, 2012, the representative and the State forwarded their final written arguments, and the Inter-American Commission presented its final written observations, 6 In this brief, the representative submitted additional observations on the State’s answering brief. In this regard, the Secretariat of the Court, on the instructions of the President of the Court, informed him in a note of November 30, 2011, that the additional observations had not been requested by the Court, so that they were “inadmissible and w[ould] not be considered by the Court. 7 2012. Cf. Case of Vélez Restrepo and Family v. Colombia. Order of the President of the Court of January 25, 8 The following appeared at the hearing: (a) for the Inter-American Commission: Catalina Botero, Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression; Michael Camilleri and Silvia Serrano Guzmán, legal advisers; (b) for the representative: Arturo Carrillo Suárez, legal representative of the presumed victims, Carlos Zelada Acuña and Raúl Hernández Hernández, advisers, and (c) for the State: Hernando Herrera Vergara, Ambassador of Colombia to Costa Rica; Assad José Jater Peña, Director of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Luz Marina Gil García, Agent; Juana Acosta López, Agent; Ivett Lorena Sanabria Gaitán, Head of the Internal Legal Affairs Office of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Brigadier General Emilio Enrique Torres Ariza, Head of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law of the National Army; Elena Ambrosi Turbay, Director of Human Rights of the Ministry of National Defense; Luz Stella Bejarano, Coordinator of the Defense Group before the International Organizations of the Ministry of National Defense; Francisco Javier Echeverri Lara, Director of International Affairs of the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Nation; Jorge Alberto Giraldo Rivera, Coordinator of the Inter-institutional Operations Group; Claudia Niño López, Sectional Prosecutor attached to the National Section of Prosecution Offices, and Felipe Ferreira Rojas, Adviser to the Inter-institutional Operations Group. 9 The brief was presented by Juan Felipe Lozano Reyes and Juliana Castro Londoño, students of the GAP Public Interest Clinic of the Universidad de Rosario, under the direction of Beatriz Londoño Toro, Director of the Human Rights Group and the GAP Public Action Group of the Universidad de Rosario, and under the academic direction of María Teresa Palacios, Director of the Human Rights Area and Nayid Abú Fager Coordinator of the GAP and professor, both the latter from the Universidad de Rosario. 10 The brief was submitted by Gabriel Choi Choi, Mar Cosín Muñoz, José García Añón, Sandra Gómez López, Lorena Menes Corrales, Ruth Mestre Mestre, Diana Núñez Pérez, Ausias Ortí Moreno, Anastasia Tsyhanok and Sara Verdú Vila of the Legal Clinic for Social Justice of the Universitat de Valencia and the Master’s Program in “Human Rights, Democracy and International Justice” of the university’s Human Rights Institute. 11 The brief was submitted by David Banisar, Senior Legal Counsel, on behalf of the organization, Article 19. 6