6 informative purposes and the expert report rendered by Mr. Javier Cabanillas Reyes and Flavia Marco Navarro, respectively. On that same day, the representative presented observations to the last two statements. 9. On January 21, 2009 the public hearing was held, within the framework of the LXXXII Ordinary Period of Sessions of the Court.9 10. On February 23, 2009 the Commission, the State and the representatives submitted, respectively, their final written arguments on the preliminary objection and the merits, reparations and costs. Given that the State and the representatives forwarded documentary evidence with the final arguments, the Court requested the parties to present observations to said Appendixes by means of note of March 11, 2009. On March 20, 2009 the Commission pointed out that "it ha[d] no observation to make" in relation to the evidence tendered by the State and by the representatives with their corresponding briefs of final arguments. The State and the representative presented no observations in such regard. 11. On March 30, 2009 the representative was requested to forward to the Tribunal the receipts and evidence related to the costs and expenses mentioned in appendix 5 of the brief of pleadings and motions in the instant case. On April 20, 2009 the representative requested an extension of 30 days to present said evidence, which was granted by the President of the Court. On May 28, 2009, the representative requested "an extension of 30 additional days" to present said evidence. In that regard, the President of the Tribunal established a new time limit, until June 12, 2009, for the representative to present said documentation. On June 17, 2009 the representative indicated that it had sent a “list of expenses” by post and on June 22 and 23, 2009 it presented the appendixes mentioned in said communication by electronic mail. The Court established a time limit until June 29, 2009 for the State and the Commission to present the observations thereto. On June 30, 2009 the State forwarded the respective observations. By the time of the delivery of this Judgment, the Tribunal has still not received the observations of the Commission. III PRELIMINARY OBJECTION RATIONE MATERIAE 12. In the brief of response to the petition, the State asserted that the lacks competence ratione materiae to hear the case at hand. In the brief of final arguments, the State explained that the preliminary objection is based on “the Court’s lack of competence in matters concerning the alleged violation to the right 9 The following persons appeared before the public hearing: a) on behalf of the Inter-American Commission: Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, Deputy Secretary, Juan Pablo Albán, advisor, Lilly Ching Soto and Silvia Serrano, both specialists of the Executive Secretary; b) on behalf of the alleged victims and the representative: Javier Mujica Petit, representative of the alleged victims; Isabel Zoila Acevedo León, alleged victim and president of the National Association of Discharged and Retired Employees of the Comptroller General of the Republic ; Luis Adolfo Olaechea Granda, alleged victim and vice-president of the National Association of the Discharged and Retired Employees of the Comptroller General of the Republic and María Cristina Bacigalupo de Salgado, allegad victim and Advisor to the Board of the National Association of Discharged and Retired Employees of the Comptroller General of the Republic and c) on behalf of the State: Delia Muñoz Muñoz, Supranational Special Attorney General of the Legal Defense System of the State; Rosa María Silva Hurtado, Technical Secretary of the Legal Defense Council of the State; Edgar Alarcón Tejada, General Manager of the Legal Defense Council of the State and Héctor Maldonado Montalvo, Deputy Attorney General of the Comptroller General of the Republic .