4. The Order of the President of the Court of December 1, 2011 regarding the representatives’ request to have recourse to the Victims’ Assistance Fund (supra Having seen 3). 5. The brief in response to the case submitted and observations to the brief of pleadings and motions (hereinafter also the “response brief”) submitted by the Republic of El Salvador (hereinafter “El Salvador” or “the State”) on December 26, 2011, in which the State acknowledged its responsibility and stated that, by virtue of this, it was “not […] present[ing] the list of declarants and expert witnesses contemplated in Article 41.1, letters b and c of the Rules.” 6. The briefs of February 10, 2012, in which the Commission and the representatives, respectively, presented their observations to the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility. 7. The notes of the Secretariat of February 16, 2012, in which, following the instructions of the President and in accordance with Article 46.1 of the Rules of the Court applicable to the present case (hereinafter “the Rules”)2, the representatives and the Commission were asked to submit, by February 22, 2012 at the latest, their respective definitive lists of proposed declarants (hereinafter “definitive lists”), in order to schedule the public hearing in the instant case. Likewise, in accordance with the principle of procedural economy and pursuant to Article 46 of the Rules, the representatives and the Commission were asked to indicate which of the declarants offered could render their statements through affidavits before a notary public, and which of the declarants should be summoned to testify at a public hearing. 8. The briefs of February 17 and 22, 2012, in which the Inter-American Commission and the representatives, respectively, submitted their definitive lists. The Commission confirmed its offer, requested that two of the expert opinions be received at a public hearing and stated that the three expert opinions proposed would significantly affect the InterAmerican public order, under the terms of Article 35.1.f of the Court’s Rules. The representatives requested the substitution of one of the declarants offered, and asked that the Court receive three statements and one expert opinion at a public hearing. Regarding another expert opinion, they indicated that this could also be received at a public hearing. 9. The notes of the Secretariat of February 27, 2012, in which the definitive lists were transmitted to the parties and they were informed that, under the terms of Article 46 of the Rules and following the instructions of the President, they had been granted a period of 10 days, as of receiving the aforesaid definitive lists, to present any observations deemed pertinent. 10. The briefs of March 5, 6 and 8, 2012 submitted by the State, the representatives and the Commission, respectively. The State of El Salvador indicated that it “h[ad] no observations to make” to the definitive lists of declarants submitted by the representatives of the alleged victims and by the Commission. For their part, the representatives considered it important that the expert opinions which the Commission has requested to be rendered at a public hearing, are received by that means, given the significance of the matters under consideration. In its brief, the Commission stated that it had no observations to make to the representatives’ definitive list of declarants. Likewise, it requested “the opportunity to formulate questions, verbally or in writing, insofar as these are relevant and reasonable, to two of the expert witnesses offered by t [he] representatives whose statements are related 2 Rules approved by the Court in its Eighty-fifth Ordinary Period of Sessions held from November 16 to 28, 2009. 2