3 remedies under the domestic legal system. Furthermore, the State requested the following: i) to exclude any new facts and allegations in the representatives’ written pleadings of October 23, 2008; ii) to declare the alleged violation of Articles 1, 2, 7, 8, 13 and 25 of the Convention irrelevant and nonexistent, and iii) to declare the pleadings for reparation and reimbursements of costs and legal fees irrelevant and unfounded. Specifically, the State argued that it is not liable for the violations alleged against it, since Mr. Usón Ramírez “was not censored previously [nor detained arbitrarily] but tried and judgmentd [by a competent tribunal] for further responsibilities resulting from the statements he made on [a] television interview, which are the crime of slander, offense, and contempt against the National Armed Forces, according to Article 505 of the Organic Code of Military Justice.” 6. Pursuant to Article 37(4) of the Rules of Procedure, on February 5 and 11, 2009, the representatives and the Commission respectively, presented their allegations on the preliminary objection made by the State (supra para. 5), whereby the representatives requested the Court dismiss the claim and hear the merits of the case. II PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COURT 7. The Commission’s application was notified to the State and the representatives on August 21 and 25, 2008, respectively, upon a preliminary examination by the President of the Court and pursuant to Articles 35 and 36(1) of the Rules of Procedure5. 8. On February 23, 2009, the President of the Court issued an Order, whereby the presentation was ordered, from statements made before a public notary (affidavit), of six affidavits from witnesses and three expert witnesses proposed by the representatives, and two expert witnesses proposed by the Commission, to which the parties had the opportunity to present their observations. Likewise, in view of the particular circumstances of this case, the President called the Commission, the representatives, and the State to hold a public hearing and listen to the deposition of the alleged victim, offered by the Commission, a deposition offered by the representatives, and two expert reports offered by the State, as well as the final oral allegations of the parties about the preliminary objection and possible merit, reparations, and costs.6 9. On March, 13, 2009, pursuant to Article 63(1) of the American Convention, the representatives submitted before a public notary (affidavits) by Mrs. María Eugenia de Usón, María José Usón, Marta Colomina, Rocío San Miguel and Patricia Poleo Brito, as well as by Messrs. Antonio Rosich Sacan, Enrique Prieto Silva and Pedro González Caro. The representatives did not submit the affidavit by Mr. Roberto Carretón, which had been required by the President of the Tribunal through the Order of February 23, 2009. On that same day, the Commission sent the experts’ reports to Messrs. Federico Andreu and Nicolás Espejo Yaksic. On March 25, 2009, the Commission informed that the Commission did not have any observations to make about the affidavits presented by the representatives. The State and the representatives did not present any observations to the affidavits submitted by the other parties. 5 When the application was notified, the State was informed that it could designate an ad hoc judge to participate in the consideration of the present case. Nevertheless, the State did not designate an ad hoc judge in this regard. 6 Cf. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on February 23, 2009.