3 Lastly, the Commission asked the Court to declare that the State had failed to comply with the obligation contained in Article 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) of the Convention to the detriment of Mr. Lapo. 5. On October 9, 2006, Xavier Flores Aguirre and Pablo Cevallos Palomeque, representatives of the alleged victims (hereinafter “the representatives”), presented their written brief containing requests, arguments and evidence (hereinafter “requests and arguments brief”) pursuant to Article 23 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure (hereinafter “the Rules of Procedure”). They stated that they “endorsed all aspects of the legal principles and facts set out by the Commission […] in its application.” 6. On December 5, 2006, the State submitted its brief with preliminary objections, its answer to the application, and its observations on the requests and arguments brief (hereinafter “answer to the application”),2 in which it filed two preliminary objections and contested the assertions of the Inter-American Commission. 7. On January 12, 2007, the Commission and the representatives forwarded their respective briefs with arguments on the preliminary objections filed by the State. II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 8. The Commission’s application was notified to the State3 on August 17, 2006, and to the representatives on August 10, 2006. During the proceedings before the Court, in addition to the principal briefs forwarded by the parties (supra paras. 1, 5 and 6), the President of the Court4 (hereinafter “the President”) ordered that the expert opinions offered by the Commission at the appropriate time be received by means of statements made before notary public (affidavits), and the parties were given the opportunity to present their observations. In addition, the President asked the State to forward helpful evidence.5 Lastly, bearing in mind the particular circumstances of the case, the President convened the Commission, the representatives, and the State to a public hearing to hear the statements of the two alleged victims, and also the final oral arguments on preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs.6 The public hearing was held on 2 On September 25, 2006, the State appointed Juan Leoro Almeida, Ambassador of Ecuador to Costa Rica, as Agent, and Erick Roberts and Salim Zaidán as Deputy Agents. On October 20, 2006, the Secretariat of the Court informed the State that the Court’s Rules of Procedure did not establish that a State could designate several Deputy Agents, and therefore asked it to “specify who would be its designated Deputy Agent.” On December 13, 2006, the State appointed Erick Roberts as principal Agent and Salim Zaidám as Deputy Agent. 3 When the application was notified to the State, it was advised of its right to appoint a judge ad hoc to take part in the deliberation of the case. On September 25, 2006, the State appointed Diego Rodríguez Pinzón as judge ad hoc. However, on December 6, 2006, the State was informed that the Court had decided to reject this appointment, because it had been presented after the expiry of the time limit established in Article 10(4) of the Court’s Statute. 4 Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of March 15, 2007. 5 The evidence consisted of: (a) complete and legible copies of all the domestic judicial case files in the instant case, and (b) copy of the annexes to the answer to the application that were incomplete or illegible. 6 On April 26, 2007, the State requested that “despite the provisions of Articles 33 and 38 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, [the Court …] examine the possibility of receiving the testimony […] of Guadalupe Manrique Rossi.” On May 7, 2007, the President of the Court, in consultation with the other judges and having heard the opinion of the Commission and the representatives, decided “not to accept the State’s offer as it was timebarred” under Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure.