reparations.”3 The Court notes, with concern, that more than 13 years had passed between the lodging of the initial petition before the Commission and the submission of the case to the Court. 4. Requests of the Commission. – The Commission requested that the Court conclude and declare the international responsibility of Uruguay for the violations found in the Merits Report (supra footnote 1) and that the Court order the State. as measures of reparation, to comply with those included in that report (infra Chapter VIII). II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 5. Notification to the State and to the representative of the alleged victims. – The submission of the case was notified to the representative of the alleged victims (hereinafter “the representative”) and to the State on July 20, 2020.4 6. Brief with pleadings, motions and evidence. – On September 19, 2020, the representative presented its brief with pleadings, motions and evidence (hereinafter “brief with pleadings and motions”), pursuant to Articles 25 and 40 of the Rules, which substantially coincided with the arguments of the Commission. It requested that Uruguay be ordered to adopt diverse measures of reparations. 7. Answering brief. – On December 4, 2020, the State presented its answer (hereinafter “answering brief”) to the submission of the case by the Commission and to the brief with petitions and motions. 8. Public hearing. – By Order of April 16, 2021, the President of the Court called the parties and the Commission to a public hearing. Due to the exceptional circumstances caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the public hearing, which was held on June 16 and 17, 2021 during the Court’s 142nd regular session, took place by means of a videoconference, in accordance with the terms of the Rules.5 9. Amici Curiae. – The Court received amicus curiae briefs from: (i) the Línea de Investigación de Género, Derecho y Sociedad and the Human Rights Group of the Universidad Externado of Colombia6 and (ii) the Legal Clinic of the Universitat Pompeu Fabra.7 The Commission appointed, as its delegates before the Court: Commissioner Julissa Mantilla Falcón and then Executive Secretary, Paulo Abrão; and as its legal advisors, Deputy Executive Secretary, Marisol Blanchard Vera, Jorge Huberto Meza Flores and Christian González Chacón, lawyers of the Secretariat of the Commission. 3 4 The Institute of Legal and Social Studies of Uruguay represented the alleged victims. Appearing at the public hearing were: (a) for the Inter-American Commission: Julissa Mantilla Falcón, Marisol Blanchard, Jorge Meza Flores and Erick Acuña; (b) for the representative: Martín Fernández Chiossoni, Diego Camaño Viera and Lucía Giudice Graña, and (c) for the State: Carlos Mata Prates, Pilar Álvarez, Marcos Dotta, Alicia Arbelbide, Lucía Laura Fabbiani Santiñaque and Mariana Cabrera. The oral statements of an alleged victim, a witness and an expert were received at the hearing, as was the presentation of the case by the Commission and its final written observations, and the final written arguments of the parties. 5 The document was signed by Ariana Magdalena Gutiérrez Eraso, Juan Sebastián López Oñate, Yesika Alejandra Forero Sánchez, Claudia Helena Botina Bolaños, Astrid Lucero Chuy Colonia, Valentina Silva Bautista, María Daniela Díaz Villamil and Xiomara Lorena Romero. It concerns “the focus on gender with respect to the right to the truth of the victims.” 6 The document was signed by Leah Anna Spence Ferrer, Karla Ivett Alonso Robles, María Andrea Correa Pinzón, Juan Camilo Cediel Borrero and Lucía Macarena Aguerre Cazes. It concerns “the anomalies of 7 6