5 4. On April 13, 2009, the representatives forwarded their brief of claims regarding the reparations (hereinafter “brief on reparations”), pursuant to the communication of March 10, 2009. 5. On May 20, 2009, the State indicated it had not received annex 4 of the brief on reparations titled “Expert report of the assessment prepared by the Architect Jakeline Jaramillo Barcia and its annexes.” Based on the aforementioned, it requested that the one-month term granted to present the observations regarding the reparations “be suspend[ed] and only be [r]estarted” when said expert report is receive[d]. On May 22, 2009, the Secretariat, following the instructions of the then President, granted the State an additional non-renewable term until June 11, 2009, for the presentation of its observations. 6. On July 10, 2009, the Commission5 presented its observations to the representatives’ brief on reparations. 7. On August 6, 2009, the then President of the Court summoned a public hearing to learn of the claims on reparations of the representatives and the observations of the State and the Commission. 8. On September 21, 2009, the Secretariat, following instructions of the then President, requested that the representatives and Commission present evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case. 9. The public hearing was held on September 24, 2009, with the objective of hearing the claims on reparations and costs of the representatives and the observations of the State and the Inter-American Commission, during the Court’s LXXXIV Regular Sessions, at the Tribunal’s headquarters.6 10. On September 24, 2009, the representatives forwarded evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case requested on September 21, 2009. Through communication of November 5, 2010, the Commission and the State were granted time until November 19, 2009, to present the observations considered appropriate. On November 20, 2009, the Commission stated it did not have observations to present regarding said evidence and the State did not present observations in this regard. 11. On January 13, 2010, the State forwarded a brief called “observations of the State regarding some concerns stated at the hearing on reparations and costs,” in the present case, with which it enclosed several annexes. In this regard, on January 14, 2010, the Secretariat, following instructions of the President of the Court, granted a term to the representatives and the Commission so they could present the observations considered appropriate and indicated that once received the Court [would] value the admissibility of the brief and its annexes. On January 28th and February 12, 2010, the representatives and the Commission forwarded, respectively, their observations, in which they stated that the information presented was not requested by the Court nor was it appropriate with regard to the status of the proceedings, reason for which they requested that it not be accepted by the Tribunal and it be declared inadmissible. 5 The Commission appointed the Commissioner Evelio Fernández Arévalos and the Executive Secretary Santiago A. Canton as delegates, and Ariel E. Dulitzky, Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, Mario López-Garelli, and Lilly Ching as legal advisers. 6 The following appeared at this public hearing: a) for the Inter-American Commission: Lilly Ching Soto and Karla Quintana Osuna; b) for the representatives: Alejandro Ponce Martínez and Alejandro Ponce Villacís; and c) for the State: Erick Roberts Garcés, Rodrigo Durango Cordero, Germán Hidrovo, Diego Guerra, and María Gabriel Gáleas.