II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 5. Notification to the State and the representatives. The representatives of the alleged victim (hereinafter "the representatives") 2 and the State were notified of the submission of the case on November 12, 2021. 6. Brief with pleadings, motions and evidence. On January 12, 2022, the representatives filed their brief of requests, motions and evidence (hereinafter "pleadings and motions brief"), pursuant to Articles 25 and 40 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court. They asked that the State be declared responsible for the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, established in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. They also asked the Court to declare the violation of articles 1 and 21 of the same instrument and order measures of reparation. 7. Answering brief. On April 18, 2022, the State 3 filed its response to the submission of the case and to the pleadings and motions brief (hereinafter "answering brief"), in which it raised two preliminary objections and expressed its disagreement with the violations alleged and the requested measures of reparation. 8. Observations on the preliminary objections. The representatives submitted observations on the preliminary objections raised by the State on June 7, 2022. The Inter-American Commission submitted its observations on June 8, 2022. 9. Final written argument. By Order of March 6, 2023, 4 the President of the Court, in accordance with the power granted to him by Article 50(1) of the Rules of Procedure, decided not to convene a public hearing in this case and to request that the testimony of the alleged victim, four witnesses, and an expert witness be given by affidavit. 10. Helpful evidence. On March 21, 2023, on the instructions of the President of the Court, the State was requested to provide any helpful evidence. 5 The State submitted the requested documentation on March 29, 2023. In a communication from the following March 31, the evidence presented by the State was forwarded to the representatives and to the Commission, and they were given time to submit observations with their arguments and final written observations, respectively. Neither the representatives nor the Commission submitted any observations (infra para. 26). 11. Final written arguments and observations. On April 26 and 29, 2023, the State and the representatives, respectively, submitted their final written arguments to the Court. The State 2 victim. Inter-American Public Defenders Gisela Natalia Gauna Wirz and Rosmy Cáceres represented the alleged 3 The State appointed Alberto Javier Salgado, Director of International Human Rights Litigation of the Ministry of Foreign and Religious Affairs, as lead agent in this case, and as alternates, it appointed Gonzalo Bueno, Advisor to the Office of International Human Rights Litigation of the Ministry of Foreign and Religious Affairs; Andrea Pochak, Undersecretary for Protection and International Liaison of the National Secretariat of Human Rights; Gabriela Kletzel, National Director of International Legal Affairs in Human Rights Matters of the National Secretariat of Human Rights; Rodrigo Tristán Robles, Legal Advisor of the National Directorate of International Legal Affairs in Human Rights Matters of the National Secretariat of Human Rights; and Natalia Danae Zorzin, Legal Advisor of the National Directorate of International Legal Affairs in Human Rights Matters of the National Secretariat of Human Rights. Cf. Case of Boleso v. Argentina. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 6, 2023. Available at: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/boleso_06_03_2023.pdf 4 5 The State was asked to send the entire case file on the writ of amparo filed by Héctor Hugo Boleso. 4