4. In this case, the representatives of the alleged victim requested an extension of the term for presenting the definitive list of deponents, which was granted and, de officio, was also granted to the State and the Commission (supra Having Seen 11 and 12). In this regard, Venezuela expressed its opposition to the extension granted in its definitive list of deponents (supra Having Seen 13). The State held, inter alia, that this was a nonrenewable term, that the representatives’ request had no legal basis and that it resulted in “unequal treatment for the Venezuelan State, which proceeded to submit the definitive list of deponents, within the non-renewable term established in the Rules.” 5. With respect to the State’s objection, this Presidency considers it pertinent to point out that Article 46(1) 5 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure specifies that the parties and the Commission will be requested to submit their definitive lists of deponents, but it does not stipulate a specific term, nor does it state that the term granted is non-renewable. Furthermore, the President emphasizes that the extension for submitting the definitive list of deponents was granted both to the representatives and to the State and the Commission, under equal conditions (supra Having Seen 12). 6. Upon granting the term to submit the definitive lists of deponents, the parties and the Commission were notified, through notes of the Secretariat, that the Court had scheduled the public hearing in this case for the period of sessions from May 13 to 31, 2013 (supra Having Seen 10). Subsequently, the Secretariat of the Court informed the parties and the Commission that the Court would be unable to hear the case during that period of sessions and that they would be notified of the new date as soon as it had been rescheduled, and confirmed that they should present their definitive lists of deponents (supra Having Seen 12). Once the Court had rescheduled the period of sessions in which the public hearing would be held, the President of the Court authorized another procedural act to complement the definitive list of deponents, granting the parties and the Commission an opportunity to confirm or withdraw the statements offered (supra Having Seen 17). Once those complementary briefs to the definitive lists (supra Having Seen 18) had been received, the President, in accordance with Article 46(2) 6 of the Rules of the Court, proceeded to transmit the complementary briefs to the definitive lists and allowed a period for the parties to submit observations (supra Having Seen 19). 7. The representatives and the State submitted observations regarding the rescheduling of the date of the hearing and on the fact that they had been asked to present their definitive lists when the date of the hearing in this case had not yet been set. The representatives noted that “unusual situations [had arisen] which even contradict the Rules, for reasons external to the parties.” For its part, Venezuela argued, inter alia, that “[the] Court’s decision to suspend the hearing [… was] intended to affect [the] witness statements proposed [by the State] and benefit the alleged victim […].” Given the 5 Article 46 (1) (Definitive list of declarants) of the Rules establishes that: 1. The Court will request the Commission, the alleged victims or their representatives, the respondent State, and, if applicable, the petitioning State to submit definitive lists of declarants, in which they shall confirm or retract offers of evidence submitted within time in accordance with Articles 35(1)(f), 36(1)(f), 40(2)(c), and 41(1)(c) of these Rules of Procedure, in the form of statements of alleged victims, witnesses, or expert witnesses. Additionally, they must indicate to the Court their position as to which of the declarants offered should be summoned to the hearing, where applicable, and which declarants can render their statements through affidavits. 6 Article 46 (2) of the Rules of Procedure establishes that: 2. The Court shall transmit the definitive list of deponents to the opposing party and shall establish a time limit in which to present, if necessary, observations, objections, or challenges. 5