ORDER OF THE
INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
OF JUNE 18, 2012
CASE OF THE SANTO DOMINGO MASSACRE v. COLOMBIA

HAVING SEEN:
1.
The brief raisings preliminary objections, answer to the application, and observations to
the brief containing pleadings and motions, and its appendixes (hereinafter "the answer
brief"), received on March 9, 2012, whereby the Republic of Colombia (hereinafter "the State")
offered one testimony and five expert witness reports without identifying the individuals it was
proposing. The State expressed inter alia that it would provide the Court with the names and
curriculum vitaes of the expert witnesses "as soon as possible;" it requested a deadline for
doing so, should it be deemed relevant. It also requested that should its expert witness
evidence not be accepted, the Court "be the one to propose the names of international expert
witnesses.” Additionally, it stated that "in any [case], the State […] would cover the cost of the
expert witnesses chosen ex officio by the Court.”
2.
The notes of the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter "the Secretariat") dated April 25,
2012, whereby the parties were informed that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
(hereinafter "the Court" or "the Tribunal") would hold a public hearing in this case during its
XCV Regular Period of Sessions and requested their final lists of declarants, pursuant to the
terms of Article 46(1) of the Rules of Procedure.1 Likewise, based on the principle of judicial
economy and in application of the aforementioned Article of the Rules of Procedure, the parties
were asked to indicate which declarants would be able to give their statements before a notary
public (affidavit) and which ones should be called to testify in the public hearing.
3.
The brief and its appendixes dated May 9, 2012, whereby the State submitted its final
list of declarants and offered two expert witness reports and one testimony for the hearing, as
well as two expert witness reports via affidavit. In this brief, the State provided the names of
the expert witnesses it was proposing, submitted their curriculum vitaes, and reiterated its
"subsidiary" request (supra Having Seen clause 1).
4.
The notes of the Secretariat dated May 10, 2012, providing final lists of the declarants
and announcing that pursuant to the terms of Article 46 of the Rules of Procedure and
following the instructions of the President of the Court (hereinafter "the President”), a deadline
of May 16, 2012, was established for submitting any observations deemed pertinent.
5.
The briefs dated May 15 and 16, 2012 whereby the representatives, the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter "the Commission") and the State submitted their
observations on the final lists of declarants.
6.
The note from the Secretariat dated May 18, 2012, whereby, following the instructions
of the President, and without detriment to what it would have to decide with regard to the
1

Rules of Procedure passed in the LXXXV Regular Period of Sessions held from November 16 to 28, 2009.

Select target paragraph3