7. On May 24, 2011, the State presented its brief filing preliminary objections5 and answering the briefs submitting the case and with pleadings and motions (hereinafter “answering brief”). In this brief, Venezuela denied its international responsibility for violating the rights alleged by the Commission and by the representative and asked that the Court: (a) “declare report No. 84/10 of July 13, [2010, …] irreceivable, as well as the requests for reparations and costs”; (b) “dismiss and reject the pleading, motions and evidence submitted […] by Raúl José Díaz Peña, […] and, consequently, not sentence the Venezuelan State to make the reparations and pay the costs contained in the said brief,” and (c) “urge the Commission to annul the arguments, conclusions and recommendations contained in report No. 84/10, […] because they do not represent the objective reality of the facts, they violate the sovereignty of the Venezuelan State, and they harm its domestic legal system. Lastly, the State appointed Germán Saltrón Negretti and Manuel García Andueza, as agent and deputy agent, respectively. 8. On August 12, 2011, the representative and the Commission forwarded their respective written arguments on the preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies, in accordance with Article 42(4) of the Rules of Procedure.6 9. Following the submission of the principal briefs (supra paras. 1, 6 and 7), in an Order of November 2, 2011, the President required that affidavits be received from five witnesses, one proposed by the representative and four by the State, as well as the expert opinions of two expert witnesses, one proposed by the representative and the other required, ex officio, by the President of the Court. The President also asked the State to submit various documents as helpful evidence. In addition, the President convened the parties and the Commission to a public hearing to receive the statement of the presumed victim proposed by the representative by video conference and, directly, the testimony of a witness and the opinion of an expert witness both proposed by the State, as well as the final oral arguments of the representative and of the State and the final oral observations of the Commission on the preliminary objection and eventual merits, reparations and costs. 10. The public hearing was held on December 1, 2011, during the Court’s ninety-third regular session.7 11. On January 23 and 24, 2012 the State, the representative, and the Inter-American Commission submitted their respective final written arguments and observations. The State submitted, inter alia, documents requested by the Judges of the Court during the public hearing, which were forwarded to the other parties to that they could make any observations they deemed pertinent. 5 One of the two preliminary objections filed by the State was an allegation of “lack of impartiality” of some of the Judges and the Secretary of the Court. In this regard, the acting President of the Inter-American Court, Judge Alberto Pérez Pérez, issued the Order of June 24, 2011, in which he decided, inter alia, that the argument of lack of impartiality in the functions performed by some of the Judges who are members of the Court, submitted by the State of Venezuela as a preliminary objection, was not a preliminary objection. In addition, he declared that this allegation of lack of impartiality was unfounded and considered that it corresponded to the Court, in plenary, to continue hearing this case fully, until its conclusion. Cf. Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela. Order of the acting President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 24, 2011. 6 In a note of the Secretariat of August 19, 2011, it was observed that, in the said brief, the representative had presented pleadings additional to the arguments on the preliminary objection that were requested; consequently, on the instructions of the President of the Court, the representative was informed that they were inadmissible. Nevertheless, the representative could present the arguments that she deemed pertinent at the appropriate procedural moments established in the Rules of Procedure, such as during the public hearing and in the final written arguments. 7 At this hearing, there appeared: (a) for the Inter-American Commission: Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, Deputy Executive Secretary, and Silvia Serrano Guzmán, Adviser; (b) for the representative: Patricia Andrade of Venezuela Awareness Foundation, and Verioska Velasco, journalist, and (c) for the State: Germán Saltrón Negretti, Agent, and Norevy Cortez, Lawyer of the State Human Rights Agency before the Inter-American and International Systems. 5