would be received by affidavit 3. The public hearing was held on February 4, 2013 during the Court’s 98th Regular Period of Sessions, which took place at its seat. 4 During the hearing the Court received the statements of one alleged victim and three expert witnesses, as well as the observations and final oral arguments of the Commission, the representatives of the alleged victims and the State, respectively. The Court also required the parties to present certain information and documentation at the hearing to facilitate adjudication. 8. Amici curiae - On March 22, 2012 the Fundación Vida Solidaria and others 5 presented an amicus curiae brief in this case. On August 7, 2012 a group of 68 people also presented an amicus curiae brief. Similarly, on January 4, 2013 Mrs. María Nazareth Ramos and Emilia Carrasco, students of the Legal Clinic of the University of San Francisco of Quito, presented another amicus curiae brief. 9. Arguments and final written observations – On March 4, 2013 the representatives of the alleged victims and the State submitted their final written arguments, and the Commission presented its final written observations. 10. Observations of the representatives and the State. – The briefs of arguments and final written observations were conveyed to the parties and the Commission on March 11, 2013. On March 31, 2011 the representatives of the alleged victims forwarded their observations to the answers provided by the State in its final arguments. On April 1, 2013, the Commission submitted its observations to the answers presented by the State in its final arguments. 11. In its brief of April 9, 2013, the State pointed out that the Inter-American Commission “is not granted the opportunity to submit final written arguments as the State and the representatives of the alleged victims are.” It also asked the Court “to dismiss and not assess the observations presented” by the representatives “since these clearly contravene [d] the regulations regarding the Final Written Proceedings” before the Court. In this regard, the Secretariat, following the instructions of the President of the Court, sent a note on April 16, 2013 6 informing the parties and the Inter-American Commission that the final deadline granted to the parties was limited to “referring only, if they deem[ed] it pertinent, to the information, clarifications or documentation provided by the parties and the Commission in response to the notes of Secretariat of February 13, 2013.” Thus, said request was limited to ending the dispute regarding the arguments and evidence presented in response to the concerns raised by the full Court both to the parties and the Inter-American Commission. III JURISDICTION 12. In accordance with Article 62(3) of the American Convention, the Court has jurisdiction to hear this case, given that Ecuador has been a State Party to the Convention 3 Cf. Case of Quintana Coello et al. v. Ecuador. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of December 20, 2012. Available at: http:www.Courtidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/quintana_20_12_12.pdf . 4 The following persons appeared at the hearing: a) for the Inter-American Commission: José of Jesus Orozco Hernández, Silvia Serrano Guzman and Jorge H. Meza Flores; b) for the representatives of the alleged victims: David Cordero Heredia and Ramiro Ávila Santamaría, and c) for the State of Ecuador: Erick Roberts Garcés, Alonso Fonseca, María del Carmen Jacome and Carlos Espín Arias. 5 Amicus Curiae brief submitted by the Fundación Vida Solidaria and signed by the Vice-president and executive director of the Foundation, Mrs. Ibeth Liliana Suasnavas. 6 Note of the Secretariat of the Inter-American Court of April 16, 2013 (Merits file, volume V, page 2124). 6