11. Public hearing. In the order of February 8, 2018,8 the President of the Court ordered that testimony be received by affidavit from four presumed victims, two deponents providing information proposed by the representatives, two expert witnesses proposed by the representatives, and one expert witness proposed by the Commission. In addition, in the order the President summoned the parties and the Commission to a public hearing that was held during the Court’s 122nd regular session which took place at its seat. 9 During the hearing, the Court received the statements of two presumed victims and one expert witness proposed by the representatives, as well as the final oral observations and arguments of the Commission, and the representatives and the State, respectively. 12. Final written arguments and observations. On April 9, 2018, the representatives and the State presented their respective final written arguments and various annexes, and the Inter-American Commission forwarded its final written observations. 13. Supervening facts. On March 2, 2018, the representatives presented information and documentation on facts that had allegedly occurred following the presentation of the brief with motions, pleadings and evidence. The Commission and the State did not present information in this regard. 14. Helpful evidence. On June 28, 2018, the representatives were asked to provide helpful evidence. On July 31, 2018, the representatives forwarded the information requested and, on the same date, the Court asked the State to provide specific information related to the evidence that the representatives had been asked to provide. On August 14, 2018, the State requested an extension of the time limit to send the information requested, and this was granted by the Court. On August 21, 2018, the State provided a final answer to the Court’s request. 15. Deliberation of the case. The Court began deliberating this judgment on August 22, 2018. III.. JURISDICTION 16. The Inter-American Court has jurisdiction to hear this case pursuant to Article 62(3) 10 analyzed the concept of the principle of progressivity in international law, particularly how it has been analyzed by the region’s high courts. It emphasized the need for the Court to rule in order to produce the first inter-American standards in this regard and also on the corresponding State obligations. Second, the brief considered that it should be established as judicial criteria that the absence of indicators, information and statistics was, per se, a violation of the principle owing to the immediate minimum obligations derived from Article 26 in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention. The brief examined the regional experiences in limiting patents for reasons of public interest. It stressed the need to adopt alternate measures such as the obligatory licensing of pharmaceutical patents based on public interest. Cf. Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala. Summons to a hearing. Order of the President of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of February 8, 2018. Available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/ cuscul_08_02_18.pdf. 8 Those present at this hearing were: (1) for the Inter-American Commission: Silvia Serrano Guzmán and Soledad García Muñoz; (b) for the representatives: Esteban Madrigal Brenes, Gisela De Léon, Marcia Aguiluz, Antonio Jaén, Mariana Brocca, Eduardo Arathoon and Cristina Calderón, and (c) for the State de Guatemala: Juan Carlos Orellana Juárez, Felipe Sánchez González, Lourdes Mylene Woolfolk Contreras, Briceida Aracely Hoenes Raquel, Mario Enrique Anthoon Urbina, Rafael Eduardo Bran Paz and Verónica Jiménez. 9 Article 62(3) of the Convention establishes that: “[t]he jurisdiction of the Court shall comprise all cases concerning the interpretation and application of the provisions of this Convention that are submitted to it, provided that 10 6