that 13 years passed between the presentation of the initial petition to the Commission and the submission of the case to the Court. 5. The Commission’s requests. Based on the above, the Inter-American Commission asked the Court to find and declare the international responsibility of the State for the violations contained in its Merits Report and to order the State to adopt, as measures of reparation, those included in that report. II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 6. Notification to the State and to the representatives. The submission of the case was notified to the State and to the representatives on March 4, 2019. 7. Brief with motions, pleadings and evidence. On May 6, 2019, Fabián Sánchez Matus, Javier Cruz Angulo Nobara and José Antonio Caballero Juárez (hereinafter “the representatives”) presented their brief with motions, pleadings and evidence (hereinafter “motions and pleadings brief”) pursuant to Articles 25 and 40 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure.3 The representatives agreed with the Commission’s arguments, adding that the State was also responsible for the violation of the obligation to provide the reasoning for the judgments, and the rights to the presumption of innocence and to be assisted by legal counsel of one’s own choosing (Articles 8(1) and 25, 8(2) and 8(2)(d) of the Convention, respectively). They also alleged violations that had occurred in “other disciplinary proceedings instituted against Judge Urrutia Laubreaux in the context of his judicial activities after the presentation of the initial petition.” 8. Evidence obtained ex officio. On May 8, 2019, the Secretariat of the Court, at the request of an interested party and on the instructions of the President, asked the State to provide certain documentary evidence. The State forwarded this evidence on July 8, 2019. 9. Answering brief. On July 8, 2019, the State submitted to the Court its brief with preliminary objections and answering the submission of the case by the Commission, as well as with its observations on the motions and pleadings brief (hereinafter “the answering brief”). In this brief the State filed six preliminary objections, contested the violations that had been alleged and the requests for measures of reparations made by the Commission and the representatives, and asked the Court to hold a conciliation hearing in this case. 10. Observations on the preliminary objections. On August 7 and 9, 2019, the Commission and the representatives, respectively, presented their observations on the preliminary objections. 11. Request for a “conciliation hearing.” On September 17, 2019, the State again asked the Court to require “the personal appearance of the petitioner in a public hearing before this Court, for the sole purpose of allowing the State and the petitioner to discuss an agreement pursuant to the provisions of Article 63 of the Rules of Procedure that would put an end to this litigation.” The representatives indicated that “neither the victim nor his representatives have any interest” in reaching a friendly settlement, and therefore asked the Court to reject the State’s request and proceed to call the public hearing in the case. 12. Call to a public hearing. On December 20, 2019, the President issued an order calling the parties and the Commission to a public hearing on the preliminary objections and eventual merits, reparations and costs, to receive their respective final oral arguments and observations On August 13, 2012, the Center for Justice and International Law ceased to represent Judge Urrutia Laubreaux. Messrs. Angulo Nobara and Caballero Juárez assumed the representation of Mr. Urrutia Laubreaux on September 1, 2015. Fabián Sánchez Matus assumed his representation on August 29, 2016. 3 4