7 Court heard the statements of the presumed victim I.V., witness Edgar Torrico Ameller, and expert witnesses Christina Zampas and Erwin Hochstatter Arduz. In addition, the Court required the parties to submit certain information and documentation. In particular, it requested a complete copy of the case file of the administrative proceeding and of statements collected at the domestic level of those who had been involved in or witnessed the bilateral tubal ligation procedure performed on I.V. The affidavits were received on April 25, 28 and 29, 2016. 10. Amici curiae. The Court receive amicus curiae briefs from: (1) the International Human Rights Law Clinic of the Faculty of Law of Aix-en-Provence (France); (2) the Human Rights and Gender Justice Clinic of the School of Law at the City University of New York (CUNY) and Women Enabled International; (3) the Human Rights Clinic of the Law Faculty at the Universidad de Santa Clara and the International Justice Resources Center (Bolivia); (4) the University of Sussex and the Rights and Justice Research Centre; (5) the Allard K. Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic of the Law School of the University of Yale and Women’s Link Worldwide, and (6) the Reproductive Rights Center, on April 22, and May 10, 13, 14, 16 and 17, 2016, respectively. 11. Final written arguments and observations. On May 31 and June 2, 2016, the representative and the State, respectively, forwarded their final written arguments, as well as various annexes, and on June 2, 2016, the Commission presented its final written observations. 12. Helpful evidence. As the State did not forward all the information requested during the respective hearing, since it did not submit a complete copy of the file of the administrative proceeding, but only “significant documents” from this proceeding, and failed to remit the statements collected at the domestic level of those who had been involved in or had witnessed the bilateral tubal ligation procedure to which I.V. was subjected, it was asked to forward this information by June 24, 2016. On that date, the State remitted some clarifications concerning the helpful evidence. In particular, it indicated that “the State’s institutions do not have the complete file of the [… administrative] proceeding.” Regarding the statements, it advised that these had been collected and assessed opportunely by the jurisdictional authority during the criminal proceedings and were referred to in the rulings of the administrative proceeding and the medical audits. 13. Observations of the parties and the Commission. The President granted the parties and the Commission a specific time frame to submit any observations they deemed pertinent on the annexes forwarded by the State and the representative with their final written arguments. On July 5, 2016, the State forwarded the observations requested. The representative did not send observations within the time frame granted to this end and, following an extension, the Commission indicated that it had no observations to present, 14. Disbursements in application of the Legal Assistance Fund. On July 26, 2016, the Secretariat, on the instructions of the President of the Court, sent the State information on the disbursements made in application of the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund in this case and, as provided for in article 5 of the Court’s Rules for the operation of the Fund, granted it a time frame to present any observations it deemed pertinent. The State did not present observations within the respective time frame. 15. Deliberation of the case. The Court began deliberating this case on November 29, 2016. Attorney General; the deputy agent, Carmiña Llorenti Barrientos, Solicitor General for the State’s Legal Defense and Representation; the deputy agent, Israel Ramiro Campero Méndez, Director General for Defense of Human Rights and the Environment; Guehiza Patricia Zeballos Grossberger, lawyer from the Attorney General’s Office, and Juana Inés Acosta López, lawyer.