preliminary objections (hereinafter “answer” or “answering brief”), in accordance with Article 41 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure.5 8. Observations on the preliminary objections. In briefs received on October 28 and 30, 2015, the representatives and the Commission submitted their observations on the preliminary objections filed by the State. 9. Public hearing. In an order of the President of the Court of December 11, 2015,6 and an order of the Court of February 15, 2016,7 the parties and the Commission were called to a public hearing that was held on February 18 and 19, 2016, during the Court’s 113th regular session.8 During the hearing, the Court received the statements of two witnesses proposed by the representatives and four expert witnesses proposed by the Commission, the representatives, and the State, as well as the final oral observations of the Commission, and the final oral arguments of the representatives and the State. In addition, the said orders required seven witnesses and ten expert witnesses proposed by the representatives and the State to submit affidavits. 10. Amici curiae. The Court received seven amici curiae briefs9 presented by: (1) the Amazonian Human Rights Clinic, Universidade Federal do Pará;10 (2) the Human Rights and Democracy Institute of the Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú;11 (3) the International In briefs dated June 8 and 30, and August 10, 2015, the State appointed Maria Dulce Silva Barros, Boni de Moraes Soares, Pedro Marcos de Castro Saldanha, João Guilherme Fernandes Maranhão, Rodrigo de Oliveira Morais, Luciana Peres, Fabiola de Nazaré Oliveira and Hélia Alves Girão as its Agents. 5 Order of the President of the Court of December 11, 2015, available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/ trabajadores_11_12_15.pdf. 6 Order of the Court of February trabajadores_15_02_16_por.pdf. 7 15, 2016, available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/ There appeared at this hearing: (a) For the Inter-American Commission: Francisco Eguiguren Praeli, Commissioner, and Silvia Serrano Guzmán, adviser to the Executive Secretariat; (b) for the representatives: Viviana Krsticevic, Helena de Souza Rocha, Beatriz Affonso, Elsa Meany, Xavier Plassat, Ricardo Rezende Figueira and Ana Batista de Souza, and (c) for the State: Maria Dulce Silva Barros, Boni de Moraes Soares, João Guilherme Fernandes Maranhão, Luciana Peres, Hélida Alves Girão, Giordano da Silva Rosseto, Maria Cristina M. dos Anjos, Gustavo Guimarães, Nilma Lino Gomes, Cecilia Bizerra Souza and Claudio Fachel. 8 Regarding these amici curiae, the State objected that the translations of the briefs of the Universidad del Norte de Colombia, the Human Rights and Democracy Institute of the Pontificia Universidad Católica del Peru, and Human Rights in Practice were not submitted within the corresponding time frame and, consequently, requested that the Court declare them inadmissible. It also alleged that the amicus curiae of Tara Melish, associate professor at the State University of New York, expressly referred to the State’s answering brief despite the fact that this is for the exclusive use of the parties and the Inter-American Court during the processing of the case, so that it should also be declared inadmissible. In this regard, the Court noted that the translation into Portuguese of the brief of the Universidad del Norte de Colombia was presented on March 14, 2016, while the translations of the briefs of the Human Rights and Democracy Institute of the Pontificia Universidad Católica del Peru, and of Human Rights in Practice were presented on March 17, 2016. Consequently, the Court will not take into consideration the briefs presented as amici curiae by the Human Rights and Democracy Institute of the Universidad Católica del Peru, and by Human Rights in Practice, due to their late presentation. Nevertheless, the brief of the Universidad del Norte de Colombia was submitted within the time frame granted by the Court. In the case of the State’s objection to the brief presented by Tara Melish, the Court points out that the State of Brazil’s answering brief in this case had not been made public; however, it notes that this document is not confidential in nature and did not contain sensitive information that the State might have requested be kept confidential; therefore, the State’s request that it be declared inadmissible is denied. 9 The brief was signed by Valena Jacob Chaves Mesquita, Cristina Figueiredo Terezo Ribeiro, Manoel Maurício Ramos Neto, Caio César Dias Santos, Raysa Antonia Alves Alves and Tamires da Silva Lima. 10 The brief was signed by Elizabeth Salmón Gárate, Cristina Blanco Vizarreta, Alessandra Enrico Headrington and Adrián Lengua Parra. (evidence file, folio 1. 11 7