(hereinafter “brief of pleadings and motions”). In said brief, the representative offered four witness statements and requested the transfer of an expert opinion rendered in the case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. She also requested access to the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund of the Inter-American Court (hereinafter “the Assistance Fund” or “the Fund”)1. 4. The brief of September 26, 2012, in which the State submitted its brief filing a preliminary objection, its answer to the brief submitting the case and its observations to the brief of pleadings and motions (hereinafter the “answer brief”). In said brief the State offered ten witness statements and four expert opinions. 5. The Order of October 24, 2012, in which the acting President of the Court (hereinafter “the acting President” or “the acting Presidency”) declared admissible the request of the alleged victim to have access to the Assistance Fund (supra Having Seen 3). 6. The briefs of November 24 and 25, 2012, in which the Inter-American Commission and the representative submitted, respectively, their observations to the preliminary objection filed by the State. 7. The notes of November 27, 2012, in which the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat ”) following the instructions of the acting President, and in accordance with Article 46(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, called on the State, the representative and the Commission to submit their definitive lists of proposed deponents, and, for reasons of procedural economy, and pursuant to the abovementioned article, to indicate which deponents could render their statements by affidavit and which should be summoned to testify at a public hearing, in order of priority. 8. The briefs of December 5, 2012, in which the State, the representative and the Commission presented their definitive lists of deponents, indicating those who could render their statements by affidavit and those who should render their statements at a public hearing. 9. The notes of December 10, 2012, in which the Secretariat of the Court, following the instructions of the acting President, transmitted the definitive lists of deponents to the parties and to the Inter-American Commission, and granted them a period until December 20, 2012 to submit any observations considered pertinent. 10. The brief of December 20, 2012, in which the State presented its observations to the expert witnesses proposed by the Commission, objections to the witnesses proposed by the representative and objections to the inclusion in the case file of evidence rendered in the case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. 11. The brief of December 20, 2012, in which the representative presented her objections to three witnesses offered by the State, challenged the expert witness proposed by the State, Federico Javier Llaque Moya, and made observations on the relevance of the expert opinions offered by the Commission to the inter-American public order. 1 In the instant case, the representative submitted “arguments related to the legal analysis of this case” and “claims regarding the reparations” on May 18, 2012, in other words, three days after the non-renewable term for presenting these had expired. In this regard, the full Court, gathered at its 95th Regular Period of Sessions, decided that it was not appropriate to admit said arguments because they were time-barred. The parties and the Commission were notified of this decision through the notes of the Secretariat of the Court of July 11 and 24, 2012. 2