4 . Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) notified the application by fax to the State6 and the representatives,7 respectively. On May 22, 2007 the application was sent to the State and the representatives by courier, along with all the appendixes, which was received by the representatives on May 31, 2007 (T1 f.215 and 225). Due to problems within the courier company hired the application was not received by the State in the estimated time, thus it was resent to the Venezuelan Ministry of Foreign Affairs on June 7, 2007, through the Embassy of Venezuela. On July 9, 2007 the State appointed Mr. Pier Paolo Pasceri Scaramuzza as Judge ad hoc. 8. Once the State presented its response to the application (supra para. 5), on October 12, 2007, the then President of the Court issued an Agreement through which it decided not to accept the State’s request, presented as a preliminary objection, that the judges Cecilia Medina Quiroga and Diego García-Sayán be separated from hearing the case, and submitted the agreement to the Full Corte. On October 18, 2007 the Court issued an order declaring inadmissible the State’s mentioned request and accepted the excuse given by Judge GarcíaSayán. 9. On November 16, 2007 the Commission and the representatives presented their written arguments to the preliminary objections presented by the State. 10. On December 17, 2008 the representatives forwarded documents as evidence and stated that “due to reasons of grave difficulty” they could not be sent along with their brief of pleadings and motions. The Court asked the State and the Commission to forward the observations considered appropriate. On January 18, 2008, after an extension granted, the Commission communicated it did not have any observations to present, while the State did not refer to this matter. 11. On June 11, 2008 the President of the Court ordered the receipt through statements offered before a notary public (affidavit) of twelve testimonies and six expert opinions offered by the Commission, the representatives, and the State, 8 regarding which the parties had the opportunity to present observations. Additionally, the President summoned the Commission, the representatives, and the State to a public hearing to receive the statement of a witness proposed by each party, as well as the final oral arguments on a preliminary objection and the possible merits, reparations, and costs. Finally, the President decided to include in the body of evidence of the present case two statements. 9 12. On June 17, 2008 the representatives stated that they had faced difficulties to authenticate some statements and expert opinions required in the previous Order and they also communicated the death of Mr. Javier García Flores, one of the alleged victims of the present case. When the State was notified of the application, it was informed of its right to respond to it in writing and, in its case, present its observations to the brief of pleadings, motions, and evidence presented by the alleged victims or their representatives, within the non-extendable term of four months as of the notification thereof, pursuant with Article 38 of the Rules of Procedure. Similarly, in the terms of Article 35(3) and 21(3) of the Rules of Procedure, the State was requested to appoint, within a 30-day term, an Agent to represent it before the Court and, if considered necessary, a Deputy Agent as well. Finally, the State was informed of the possibility to appoint a judge ad hoc, within the 30 days following the notification of the application, to participate in the consideration of the case. 6 Similarly, when the application was notified to the representatives, they were informed of their right to present their brief of pleadings, motions, and evidence, within the non-extendable terms of two months as of the notification of that application, in the terms of Articles 23 and 36(1) of the Rules of Procedure. 7 Cf. Order issued by the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on June 11, 2008. We decided to include, in application of the stipulations of Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, the statements and expert opinion of Ángel Palacios Lascorz, a witness offered by the State and María Alejandra Díaz Marín, expert proposed by the State, offered in the Case of Gabriela Perozo et al. v. Venezuela. 8 9