79(2) of the current Rules of Procedure, if the alleged victims did not have a duly accredited legal representative, “the Commission, in its capacity as guarantor of the public interest under the American Convention, shall represent the alleged victims in the proceedings in order to ensure that they enjoy legal defense.” 5. On September 2, 2010, Alicia Barbani Duarte and María del Huerto Breccia Farro, alleged victims and representatives of some of the alleged victims in this case (hereinafter “the representatives”), submitted to the Court their brief with pleadings, motions and evidence (hereinafter “pleadings and motions brief”) under Article 40 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. The representatives indicated that they endorsed “fully” the facts described in the application and asked the Court to declare the international responsibility of the State for the violation of Articles 8(1) (Right to a Fair Trial), 25(1) (Right to Judicial Protection), 21 (Right to Property) and 24 (Right to Equal Protection) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. Consequently, they requested that the Court order various measures of reparation. 6. On November 26, 2010, Uruguay submitted to the Court its brief answering the application brief and with observations on the pleadings and motions brief (hereinafter “answering brief”). In this brief, the State rejected the inclusion of the alleged violations of Articles 21 (Right to Property) and 24 (Right to Equal Protection) of the Convention, alleged by the representatives in their pleadings and motions brief, as part of the purpose of this case, because the Inter-American Commission had not included the said alleged violations in its application or in its Report on Merits. In addition, the State contested all the claims presented by the Commission and the facts on which they were founded, as well as the facts alleged by the representatives of the alleged victims; denied its international responsibility for the alleged violations of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the alleged victims identified in the application brief, and also, subsidiarily, its international responsibility for the alleged violations of Articles 21 and 24 of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the alleged victims identified in the application brief. Regarding the reparations requested by the Commission and the representatives, the State asked the Court to reject all of them. On August 13, 2010, the State appointed Carlos Mata, as its Agent, and Daniel Artecona and Vivina Pérez Benech as Deputy Agents. II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 7. Following the presentation of the principal briefs (supra paras. 1, 5 and 6), as well as others forwarded by the parties, the President of the Court, in an Order dated January 31, 2011,7 required that the testimony of seven witnesses, three of whom were proposed by the representatives and four by the State, be received by means of sworn statements made before a notary public (affidavits). The Commission, the representatives and the State were allowed to formulate questions to the said witnesses and expert witnesses before they gave their respective testimony and expert opinion, and also to submit observations on such testimony and opinions.8 In addition, in the said 3. If this information [the name and address of the representatives of the alleged victims] is not provided in the application, the Commission, in its capacity as guarantor of the public interest under the American Convention, shall represent the alleged victims in order to ensure that they enjoy legal defense. 7 Cf. Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay. Order of the President of the Court of January 31, 2011. 8 In application of the provisions of Article 50(5), and in keeping with the Order of the President of January 31, 2011 (supra note 7, third operative paragraph), on February 7, 2011, the Commission, the representatives and the State forwarded the written questions to be answered by the witnessed proposed by the representatives and the State, when giving their testimony before notary public. On the instructions of the President of the Court, some of the questions proposed by the parties were reformulated, because it was 4