17 59. Lastly, despite the State’s affirmation that the supposed failure to respect the regulatory time limit prejudiced its defense (supra para. 26), Brazil did not indicate what the said prejudice was or how the delayed receipt of the attachments to the representatives’ brief could affect the preparation of its defense negatively, particularly when it was granted an extension of one month to submit its answer to the application. The Court underscores that the representatives’ arguments and reasoning were developed in their pleadings and motions brief, which was received within the established time limit, and not in the attachments, which were delayed. Therefore, by receiving a copy of the pleadings and motions brief on April 17, 2008, and since the President had granted an extension ex officio, the State had 30 additional days to the time established in the Rules of Procedure. This allowed it to proceed with the preparation of its defense arguments prior to receiving the attachments on May 23, 2008, when it had 49 days to present its answer to the application and observations on the pleadings and motions brief. Furthermore, it should be emphasized that the factual framework of the case was established in the Commission’s application, which had been notified to the State on February 11, 2008, and that the representatives could not include other facts or alter this factual framework. Based on the foregoing, the Court does not observe the alleged prejudice to the State’s defense, or to the adversarial principle, or an imbalance between the parties, and therefore admits the pleadings and motions brief and the evidence accompanying it, and considers that the remaining attachments indicated but not provided by the representatives have not been submitted (supra para. 56). B. Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence 60. The Court received the testimony provided by the witnesses and expert witnesses who are named in this section on the issues mentioned below. The content of the said testimony is included in the corresponding chapter. 1) Vanderlei Garibaldi. Son of Sétimo Garibaldi, alleged victim, proposed by the Inter-American Commission. Among other matters, he testified on the alleged lack of justice in this case and its effects on Mr. Garibaldi’s next of kin. 2) Giovani Braun.46 Director of the Department of Agriculture of the Prefecture of the Municipality of Querência do Norte, witness proposed by the representatives. He testified, among other matters, about the efforts of the Garibaldi family to obtain title to the land on which they live, and how they followed the investigations into Mr. Garibaldi’s death. 3) Rolf Hackbart. President of the National Institute of Colonization and Agrarian Reform, witness proposed by the State. Among other matters, he testified on Brazil’s agrarian reform policy and the relations of the Federal State with the social movements of landless workers. 46 On September 16, 2008, the representatives presented their brief with the final list of witnesses and an expert witness and requested the substitution of the witnesses, Atilio Martins Mieiro, Carlos Valter da Silva and Nelson Rodrigues dos Santos, offered in the pleadings and motions brief, by Silvio de Jesús Coelho. Subsequently, in a communication of October 2, 2008, the representatives requested the substitution of the latter by Giovani Braun. On October 8, 2008, the Court advised the State and the Commission that they had until October 14, 2008, to present their observations on the representatives’ most recent request. In a communication of October 9, 2008, the Commission indicated that it had no observations on the said request, while the State did not file any objections in this regard. In an order of November 20, 2008, the President required the sworn statement before notary public of Giovani Braun. Cf. Sétimo Garibaldi v. Brazil. Notice of a public hearing, supra note 3, first operative paragraph. In addition, in a communication of March 19, 2009, the representatives asked the Court whether the witness, Giovani Braun, who had already presented his sworn statement before notary public, could also testify during the public hearing. According to the note of the Secretariat CDH-12,478/075 of March 25, 2009, this request was not granted (merits file, tome II, folio 1077).