due to the need to obtain justice and reparation for the victims. 1 This Court notes that, more than 8 years elapsed between the presentation of the initial petition before the Commission and the submission of the case to the Court. 4. Requests of the Commission. –The Commission asked this Court to conclude and declare Ecuador's international responsibility for the violations contained in the Merits Report and to order the State, as reparation measures, to comply with those measures included in the Report. II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 5. Notification to the State and the representatives. – The submission of the case was notified to the alleged victims’ representation (hereinafter “the representatives”) and to the State on February 18, 2020. 2 6. Brief of pleadings, motions and evidence. In response to the decisions in Court Agreements 1/20 of March 17, 2020 and 2/20 of April 16, 2020, the Court ordered the suspension of the calculation of all deadlines due to the emergency caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, on June 20, 2020, the representatives submitted their brief with pleadings, motions, and evidence (hereinafter “pleadings and motions brief”), in accordance with Articles 25 and 40 of the Rules of Procedure. The representatives were in substantial agreement with the Commission's arguments and made additional arguments on the merits. They also requested that Ecuador be ordered to adopt various measures of reparation and to reimburse costs and expenses. 7. Answering brief. On November 22, 2020, the State submitted its brief answering the submission of the case and Merits Report and the pleadings and motions brief (hereinafter “answering brief”), under the terms of Article 41 of the Court's Rules of Procedure. 3 In said brief, the State made a partial acknowledgment of responsibility for the facts and the human rights violations alleged in the Merits Report and made additional arguments on the merits and reparations. 4 8. Observations on the partial acknowledgement. On February 1 and 18, 2021, the representatives and the Commission presented, respectively, their observations on the partial acknowledgment of State responsibility. 1 The Commission appointed as its delegates before the Court, Commissioner Esmeralda Arosemena de Troitiño, and the then Executive Secretary Paulo Abrão, and as legal advisers the then Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, Edison Lanza, as its delegates. Similarly, it appointed as legal advisors Jorge Huberto Meza Flores, Christian González Chacón and Cecilia La Hoz Barrera, lawyers of the Commission’s Executive Secretariat. 2 The alleged victims were represented by Carlos Ayala Corao, Hernán Pérez Loose, Jorge Alvear Macías, María Daniela Rivero, Edward Jesús Pérez and Leonardo Veronico Osorio. 3 The State appointed María Fernanda Álvarez, as its principal agent, and Carlos Espín Arias and Amparo Esparza Paula, as alternate agents. The State indicated that it partially recognizes “solely and exclusively the facts related to the criminal proceeding for the crime of libel that was brought against Emilio Palacio Urrutia, Carlos Eduardo Pérez Barriga, César Enrique Pérez Barriga and Carlos Nicolás Pérez Lapentti, as well as the facts related to the constitutional action for precautionary measures filed before the Eleventh Court for Children and Adolescents of Guayas in August 2011, as it is directly linked to the former.” 4 5