7. The brief of November 17, 2011, by means of which the State forwarded its definitive list, confirmed the two proposed persons and indicated that both of them could be summoned to the public hearing. 8. The Secretariat’s notes of November 18, 2011, by means of which, on the President’s instructions, the Inter-American Commission and the representatives were granted until November 21, 2011, to forward their definitive lists. 9. The briefs of November 21, 2011, by which the Inter-American Commission and the representatives forwarded the definitive lists. The Commission confirmed the item of expert evidence previously offered and indicated that two expert witnesses could be summoned to the public hearing and the third one could render his opinion through affidavit. The representatives confirmed six alleged victims and six expert witnesses and they pointed out that three alleged victims and two expert witnesses could be summoned to the public hearing, while three alleged victims and four expert witnesses could render their statements through affidavits. 10. The Secretariat’s note of November 22, 2011, by means of which the Tribunal transmitted the definitive lists to the parties and informed them that they had until December 2, 2011, to present the observations they deem pertinent. 11. The briefs of November 2, 2011, by which the Inter-American Commission and the representatives forwarded their respective observations to the definitive lists. The Commission indicated that it had no observations regarding the definitive lists presented by the State and the representatives and requested the Tribunal the possibility of interrogating the declarants proposed by Guatemala and an expert witness proposed by the representatives. Moreover, the representatives indicated that they had no observations to the definitive list of the Commission; however, regarding the list of the State: a) they noted that, at first, Guatemala proposed two persons as expert witnesses and then, in its definitive list, it did not clarify the capacity in which they were offered, and b) they indicated, also, that said persons could not act in the capacity as expert witnesses, due to their subordinate relation to the State given that they are civil servants and both of them had intervened, at the domestic level, in this case. Therefore, they requested the Tribunal to clarify whether said persons would render statements in the capacity as witnesses. In addition, they preliminary informed on findings allegedly related to the case and requested the Court to include an additional witness to said facts. 12. The brief of December 16, 2011, and the annexes thereto, by which the representatives forwarded information and documents on alleged supervening facts and reiterated the request to include one more witness in their offer of declarants to be summoned to the hearing. 13. The Secretariat’s notes of December 21, 2011, by means of which, on the President’s instructions and based on the terms of article 57.2 of the Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal granted the State and the Inter-American Commission a time limit to forward the observations they deem pertinent regarding the facts informed by the representatives. 14. The brief of January 25, 2012, by which the State indicated that “it had no objection to the Tribunal's admission of additional information presented by the representatives[,] and admission of [Mr.] Fredy Peccerelli as witness”. CONSIDERING THAT: 2