6 Commission and asked the Court to declare the State internationally responsible for the violation of the articles alleged by the Commission and, in addition, for the violation of Articles 3, 5(2), 11(1) and 25(2)(a) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of I.V.; and Article 5 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 19 and 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of N.V. and L.A.,4 daughters of I.V. Furthermore, through her representative, the presumed victim asked to be granted access to the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund of the Inter-American Court (hereinafter “the Court’s Legal Assistance Fund” or “the Fund”). Lastly, she asked the Court to require the State to adopt diverse measures of reparation and to reimburse certain costs and expenses. 6. Answering brief. On December 16, 2015, the State5 submitted to the Court its brief answering the submission of the Merits Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the brief with motions, pleadings and evidence of the representative (hereinafter “answering brief”). In its brief, the State filed preliminary objections on the alleged “lack of jurisdiction ratione loci” and the presumed “failure to exhaust domestic remedies.” 7. Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund. In an order of the President of the Court of January 13, 2016, the presumed victim’s request, through her representative, to access the Court’s Legal Assistance Fund was declared admissible.6 8. Observations on the preliminary objections. On February 22 and 28, 2015, respectively, the representative and the Inter-American Commission presented their observations on the preliminary objections filed by the State. 9. Public hearing. In an order of March 29, 2016,7 the President called the parties and the InterAmerican Commission to a public hearing to receive their final oral arguments and observations on the preliminary objections and eventual merits, reparations and costs, and also to receive the statements of the presumed victim, of a witness proposed by the State, and of three expert witnesses proposed by the representative, the State, and the Commission.8 The public hearing took place on May 2, 2016, during the 114th regular session of the Court, held at its seat. 9 During the hearing, the The representative asked that, as in the case of I.V., and for the same reasons, the identity of her daughters should be protected and that, consequently they be referred to as N.V. and L.A. during the proceedings. On the instructions of the President of the Court, the parties were advised that the names of the presumed victim’s daughters would be kept confidential and that the Court would use the initials “N.V.” and “L.A.” to refer to them. 4 Initially, the State appointed the Attorney General, Héctor Enrique Arce Zaconeta, the Solicitor General for the State’s Legal Defense and Representation, Pablo Menacho Diederich, and the acting Director General of Human Rights and Environmental Proceedings, Nelson Marcelo Cox Mayorga, as its agents. In addition, the State accredited the Solicitor General for the State’s Legal Defense and Representation, Carmiña Llorenti Barrientos, and the lawyer, Guehiza Zeballos Grossberger, to substitute Pablo Menacho Diederich. Subsequently, the State accredited the Director General for Defense of Human Rights and the Environment, Israel Ramiro Campero Méndez, instead of Nelson Marcelo Cox Mayorga. Then, the State accredited the Director General for Defense of Human Rights and the Environment, Dante Justiniano Segales, instead of Israel Ramiro Campero Méndez. Finally, the State accredited the Director General of Defense, Emma Natalia Miranda Parra, instead of Dante Justiniano Segales, and a new Agent, the Director General for Defense of Human Rights and the Environment, Claudia Daniela Valda Mercado. 5 Cf. Case of I.V. v. Bolivia. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of January 13, 2016. Available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/I.V_fv_16.pdf 6 Cf. Case of I.V. v. Bolivia. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of March 29, 2016. Available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/iv_29_03_16.pdf 7 8 In a communication of April 14, 2016, the Commission asked that the proposed expert opinion of Ana Cepin be provided by affidavit. There appeared at this hearing: (a) for the Inter-American Commission: Commissioner Margarette May Macaulay, and Executive Secretariat lawyers, Silvia Serrano Guzmán, Jorge H. Meza Flores and Erick Acuña Pereda; (b) for the representatives of the presumed victim: Rielma Mencias Rivadeneiro, Executive Director of “Derechos en Acción,” and Marcelo Claros Pinilla and Fernando Zambrana Sea, advisers, and (c) for the State of Bolivia: the agent, Héctor Enrique Arce Zaconeta, 9