the violations indicated in its Merits Report. The Commission also asked the Court to order the State to adopt measures of reparation, and these are described and analyzed in Chapter VIII of this judgment. The Court notes with concern that there was a lapse of almost twelve years between the presentation of the initial petition before the Commission and the submission of the case to the Court. II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 5. Notification to the representatives and to the State. The Court notified the Commission’s submission of the case to the representatives of the alleged victims 3 (hereinafter “the representatives”) and to the State on September 2, 2020. 6. Brief with pleadings, motions and evidence. On November 3, 2020, the alleged victims’ representatives submitted to the Court their brief with pleadings, motions and evidence (hereinafter “the pleadings and motions brief”). The representatives agreed substantially with the allegations made by the Commission and asked the Court to declare the international responsibility of the State for the violation of the articles indicated by the Commission (with the exception of Article 9) and, also, for the violation of Article 8 of the American Convention. 4 7. Answering brief. On January 19, 2021, the State submitted to the Court its brief with preliminary objections and its answer to the submission of the case and the Merits Report of the Inter-American Commission and also to the pleadings and motions brief of the representatives (hereinafter “the answering brief”). In this brief, the State contested the alleged violations and the measures of reparation proposed by the Commission. 8. Public hearing. In an order of December 13, 2021, 5 the acting President of the Court 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 objections and eventual merits, reparations and costs, and also the statements of one of the alleged victims proposed by the representatives, one expert witness offered by the State, and one expert witness offered by the Inter-American Commission. The public hearing took place on February 14, 2022, during the Court’s 146th regular session held at its seat. 6 The alleged victims in this case were represented by Carlos Ayala Corao, Carlos Tiffer Sotomayor, Edward Jesús Pérez and María Daniela Rivero. 3 4 In their brief with final arguments they added the violation of Article 9 of the American Convention. Cf. Case of Moya Chacón et al. v. Costa Rica. Call to a hearing. Order of the acting President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 13, 2021. Available at: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/ moya_chacon_13_12_2021.pdf 5 6 At this hearing, there appeared: a) for the Inter-American Commission: Carlos Bernal Pulido, Commissioner; Tania Reneaum Panszi, Executive Secretary; Pedro José Vaca Villareal, Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression; Jorge Meza Flores, Adviser; Analía Banfi Vique, Adviser, and César Mauricio González Flores, from the Special Rapporteurship for Freedom of Expression; b) for the alleged victims: Carlos Ayala Corao, Carlos Tiffer, María Daniela Rivero and Armando González Rodicio. c) for the State of Costa Rica: Patricia Solano Castro, President of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (Agent); Natalia Córdoba Ulate, Director for Legal Affairs of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship (Agent); Ricardo Salas Porras, Member of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (Agent); Carlos Jiménez González, Consultant on criminal matters of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice; José 4