on those issues.4 Regarding the request to call a “conciliation hearing made by the State,” the President indicated that “it is not for this Court to call a conciliation hearing, especially considering that the representatives have indicated that they have no interest in reaching a friendly settlement.”5 Therefore, the President rejected the State’s request. Also, in this order, the presumed victim was called to testify in the public hearing and one witness and two expert witnesses were required to present their statements by affidavit. The order also rejected the representatives’ request to ask the State to provide certain documentary evidence. 13. Request to suspend and reschedule the hearing. On January 14, 2020, the State requested the suspension and rescheduling of the public hearing, alleging circumstances that prevented its agents from attending it.6 On January 17, 2020, the Commission advised that it had no observations to make in that regard. On January 20, 2020, the representatives asked the Court to reject the State’s request and to hold the hearing on the scheduled date. On January 21, 2020, the Court’s Secretariat, on the instructions of the President, advised that the State’s request was denied because it had not provided any reasons of force majeure that would require the suspension of the hearing, especially considering the proximity of the date originally scheduled. 14. Request for provisional measures. On January 20, 2020, the representatives submitted a request for provisional measures to the Court pursuant to Articles 63(2) of the Convention and 27 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure for the Court to order the State to adopt the necessary measures to ensure the rights to life, personal integrity and freedom of expression of Judge Daniel David Urrutia Laubreaux. The Court rejected this request by an order of March 12, 2020.7 15. Alleged supervening facts. On January 28, 2020, the representatives informed the Court of two disciplinary proceedings opened against the presumed victim, on January 8 and 13, 2020, and requested their incorporation into the case file. 16. Public hearing. The public hearing was held on January 30, 2020, during the Court’s 133rd regular session which took place in San José, Costa Rica.8 During the hearing, the presumed victim testified and the Court’s judges requested the parties and the Commission to provide certain explanations. 17. Amici Curiae. The Court received three amicus curiae briefs presented by: (1) the Chilean National Association of Judges (ANM);9 (2) members of the Universidad de Guadalajara,10 and Cf. Case of Urrutia Laubreaux v. Chile. Call to a hearing. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 20, 2019. Available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/urrutia laubreaux_ 20_12_19.pdf 4 Case of Urrutia Laubreaux v. Chile. Call to a hearing. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 20, 2019, considerandum 7. 5 The State requested the suspension and rescheduling of the hearing “owing to activities relating to the human rights situation in the country in the context of the social incidents that began on October 18, 2019”. 6 Cf. Case of Urrutia Laubreaux v. Chile. Request for provisional measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 12, 2020. Available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/urrutia_se_01.pdf 7 8 There appeared at this hearing: (a) for the Inter-American Commission: Jorge H. Meza Flores and Christian Gonzáles, advisers to the Commission; (b) for the representatives of the presumed victim: Fabián Sánchez Matus, Javier Cruz Angulo Nobara and José Antonio Caballero Juárez, and (c) for the State of Chile: Oscar Alcamán Riffo, Ambassador of Chile to Costa Rica and Agent, and Oliver Román López Serrano, lawyer of the Human Rights Directorate of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Deputy Agent. The brief was signed by María Soledad Piñeiro Fuenzalida, President of ANM, Chile. The brief refers to the organizational structure of the Chilean Judiciary and the practices that violate human rights which have been deployed by the Appellate Courts and the Supreme Court, as disciplinary organs. It also suggests the adoption of specific guarantees of non-repetition in this case. 9 The brief was signed by Sergio Armando Villa Ramos, Paulette Montserrat Bermúdez Jordana, Diana Martínez Torres, Giovanni Daniel López Ramírez and Adolfo Aldrete. The brief refers to judicial autonomy and independence within the Judiciary, the fact that article 323 of the Organic Code of the Chilean Courts is contrary to the Convention, 10 5