submit their written observations to the preliminary objections filed by the State in its
answer brief.
6.
The Order of the President of the Court of September 14, 2012 (hereinafter
“Order of the President”), in which he declared admissible the victims’ request to have
access to the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund of the Court (hereinafter “Legal
Assistance Fund”) and granted financial assistance for the presentation of a maximum
of four testimonies, to be rendered either by affidavit or at a public hearing.
7.
The briefs of October 11 and 13, 2012, in which the Commission and the
representative submitted, respectively, their observations to the preliminary objections
filed by the State of Ecuador.
8.
The notes of the Secretariat of October 19, 2012, in which, pursuant to Article
46(1) of the Rules of the Court, the State, the representative and the Inter-American
Commission were asked to forward their respective definitive lists of deponents
(hereinafter “definitive lists”) and, for reasons of procedural economy, to indicate
which deponents could render their statements by affidavit and which deponents
should be summoned to testify at a public hearing.
9.
The briefs of November 1 and 5, 2012, in which the State and the Commission,
respectively, forwarded their definitive lists. The State pointed out that the three
experts proposed in its answer brief should be summoned to render their statements
at a hearing. Moreover, it substituted one of the expert witnesses proposed, without
altering the object of the expert opinion. For its part, the Commission confirmed its
offer of one expert witness. The representative did not submit his definitive list.
10.
The notes of the Secretariat of November 9, 2012, in which, pursuant to Article
46 of the Rules of the Court and following the instructions of its President, the parties
and the Commission were granted a period until November 20, 2012 to submit
observations to the respective lists.
11.
The brief of November 20, 2012, in which the Commission stated that it had no
observations to make regarding the list of deponents offered by the representative. It
also pointed out that the State did not justify the substitution of the expert witness
requested.

CONSIDERING THAT:

1.
The offer and admission of evidence, together with the summons of alleged
victims, witnesses and expert witnesses, are regulated in Articles 35(1)(f), 40(2)(c),
41(1)(c) , 46, 50, 57 and 58 of the Rules of the Court.
2.
The Court guaranteed the parties the right of defense in respect of the offers of
evidence contained in their brief submitting the case and in the pleadings and motions
and answer briefs, as well as in their definitive lists (supra Having Seen 10).
3.
In this Order the President will address the following aspects: a) the expert
opinion offered by the Inter-American Commission; b) the statements of witnesses
and expert witnesses offered by the representative and the State ; c) the request by
2

Select target paragraph3