7. The communication of January 21, 2013 and its attachments, in which the State submitted its clarifications to the observations of the Secretariat regarding the documentary evidence attached to its answer to the brief submitting the case. 8. The notes of February 26, 2013, in which the Secretariat, following the instructions of the President, and in accordance with Article 46(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure (hereinafter “the Rules”) 2, called on the representatives and the Commission to submit, no later than March 8, 2013, 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 should be summoned to testify at a public hearing. 9. The brief of March 8, 2013, in which the Commission submitted its definitive list of deponents, confirmed the two expert opinions previously offered (supra Having Seen 1 and 3) and asked that one expert witness testify at the public hearing and the other render her statement by affidavit. 10. The brief of March 8, 2013, in which the representatives forwarded their definitive list, indicating that the statements of three alleged victims, one witness and one expert witness could be rendered by affidavit and those of three expert witnesses could be rendered at the public hearing. 11. The notes of March 14, 2013, in which the Secretariat transmitted the definitive lists of deponents to the parties and to the Commission under the terms of Article 46 of the Rules, and granted them a period of ten days as from receiving these lists to submit any observations considered pertinent. 12. The communication of March 21, 2013, in which the representatives stated that they had made “a material error upon presenting their definitive list of witnesses and expert witnesses” and indicated a change in the way in which two of the deponents offered in the brief of March 8, 2013, would render their statements. In that regard, they submitted a correction indicating that the statement of one alleged victim should be received at the public hearing and not by affidavit, as proposed in said communication. Also, they requested that the statement of an expert witness be received by affidavit, instead of at the public hearing as originally proposed. 13. The communication of March 22, 2013, in which the Secretariat, following the instructions of the President, for the reasons stated in the preceding paragraph, officially extended the deadline for the State to submit its observations to the definitive lists to March 26, 2013. 14. The brief of March 22, 2013, in which the representatives forwarded their observations to the definitive list of expert witnesses offered by the Inter-American Commission. 15. The brief of March 25, 2013, in which the Inter-American Commission stated that it had no observations to make to the definitive list of deponents of the representatives and requested an opportunity to formulate verbal or written questions to the expert witnesses 2 Rules of Procedure approved by the Court at its Eighty-fifth Regular Period of Sessions held on November 16- 28, 2009. 2