Commission and the representatives. 7. Observations on the preliminary objection. On October 9, 2020, the Inter-American Commission and the representatives each presented their observations on the preliminary objection filed by the State. 8. Public hearing. In an order of December 15, 2020,8 the President called the State, the representatives and the Inter-American Commission to a public hearing to receive their final oral arguments and observations on the preliminary objection and eventual merits, reparations and costs. In addition, in this order, the President required two alleged victims and one expert witness proposed by the representatives to provide their statements during the public hearing, and required six alleged victims, three expert witnesses, and one witness proposed by the representatives to provide their statements by affidavit. The latter were presented on February 10, 2021. Owing to the exceptional circumstances caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the public hearing was held by videoconference, as established in the Court’s Rules of Procedure, on February 17 and 18, 2021, during the 139th regular session.9 9. Amicus Curiae. On March 3, 2021, the Court received an amicus curiae brief submitted by the International Humanitarian Law Clinic at the Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul.10 10. Final written arguments and observations. On March 18, 2021, the parties and the Commission forwarded their final written arguments and final written observations, respectively. The representatives and the State forwarded certain annexes together with the said final written arguments. On the instructions of the President of the Court, the parties and the Inter-American Commission were asked to forward any comments they deemed pertinent on this annexed documentation. On April 22, 2021, the representatives provided their comments and the InterAmerican Commission indicated that it had no comments to make. 11. Deliberation of the case. The Court deliberated on this judgment in a virtual session on October 7 and 8 and November 3, 2021.11 Cf. Case of the Village of Los Josefinos Massacre v. Guatemala. Call to a hearing. Order of the President of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of December 15, 2020. Available at: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/masacre_de_la_aldea_los_josefinos_15_12_2020.pdf 8 9 There appeared at this hearing: a) for the Inter-American Commission: Commissioner Esmeralda Arosemena de Troitiño, Deputy Executive Secretary Marisol Blanchard and legal adviser Jorge H. Meza Flores; b) for the representatives of the alleged victims: Manuel Antonio Mendoza Farfán (FAMDEGUA), Carlos Humberto Martínez Roca (FAMDEGUA), Cecilio Tumux (alleged victim), Marcela Martino Aguilar (CEJIL), Gisela De León De Sedas (CEJIL) and Eduardo Guerrero Lomelí (CEJIL). c) for the State of Guatemala: the Agent, Jorge Luis Donado Vivar; the Deputy Agent Lilian Elizabeth Nájera Reyes; the Deputy Agent, María Gabriela Hernández Siguantay; the Executive Director of the Presidential Commission on Peace and Human Rights (COPADEH), Hugo Rigoberto Casosola; the Ambassador and Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs, Carlos Ramiro Martínez, and the Ambassador of Guatemala to Costa Rica, Sandra Noriega Urizar. The brief was signed by Fernanda Madalosso Guimarães, Gabriel Lee MacFadden Santos, Geysa Rodrigues Gonçalves, Isabelle Marcondes Leão de Souza, Julia Brito Ospina, Julio Veiga-Bezerra, Nathalia Igisk Lopes Portuguez and Francisco José Peralta and referred to: (i) jurisdiction and contentious competence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights; (ii) classification of the armed conflict in Guatemala and application of international humanitarian law to this specific case; (iii) competence of the Court to have recourse to the norms of international humanitarian law; (iv) importance of using international humanitarian law in this case, and (v) training of the Guatemalan armed forces in international humanitarian law as a form of reparation. 10 The judgment was deliberated during the 144th regular session and deliberated and adopted during the 145th regular session, both of which were held virtually using technological means as established in the Court’s Rules of Procedure owing to the exceptional circumstances caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. 11 6