7. The Secretariat’s notes of November 29, 2011, whereby, inter alia, on the instruction of the President, and in accordance with Article 46(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court3 (hereinafter “the Rules of Procedure”), it asked the State, the Commission and the representatives to forward, by December 9, 2011, at the latest, their respective definitive lists of deponents (hereinafter “definitive lists”) and, for reasons of procedural economy, to indicate which deponents could provide their testimony or expert opinions by affidavit, and which of them should be called to testify at a hearing. 8. The briefs of December 9 and 12, 2011, whereby the representatives and the Inter-American Commission, respectively, forwarded their definitive lists. The Commission confirmed the two proposed expert witnesses, requesting the appearance of María Laura Lencia at a public hearing and of Manolo Estuardo Vela Castañeda by affidavit, and advised of certain circumstances relating to the registration of in-coming communications, due to which there had been a delay in sending its brief. The representatives forwarded the curriculum vitae of the expert witness they had proposed, and confirmed the two statements and the expert opinion proposed in their pleadings and motions brief. However, they did not indicate who could testify by affidavit and who should appear at a hearing. 9. The note of the Secretariat on December 15, 2011, placing on record that the State had not presented its definitive list of deponents, forwarding the definitive lists to the parties, and advising them that they had until January 9, 2012, to present any observations they deemed pertinent on the said lists. 10. The communication of January 3, 2012, whereby the State submitted its definitive list, and in which it confirmed the proposed expert witness and witness, requested the appearance of the expert witness at a hearing, and asked that the testimony of the witness be provided by affidavit. In addition, the State presented its observations on the representatives’ definitive list and advised that it had not received the definitive list submitted by the Commission. 11. The communication of January 9, 2012, in which the Inter-American Commission indicated that it had no observations to make on the definitive list of deponents submitted by the representatives, and asked to be allowed to submit questions to the expert witness they had proposed. 12. The Secretariat’s note of January 12, 2012, underlining that the presentation of the State’s definitive list was time-barred and, consequently, that the President of the Court would be advised of this situation for the pertinent effects; confirming that the Commission’s definitive list had been duly forwarded to the State in a communication on December 15, 2012, and placing on record that the representatives had not submitted observations on the Commission’s definitive list. 13. The communication of February 9, 2012, in which the State advised that there had been a problem with the receipt of the definitive list of deponents presented by the Inter-American Commission. CONSIDERING THAT: 3 The Rules of Procedure approved by the Court at its eighty-fifth regular session, held from November 16 to 28, 2009. 2