5 Tribunal to order the State to adopt various measures of reparation, as well as the payment of costs and expenses. 4. On January 9, 2010, Mrs. Viviana Krsticevic, Alejandra Nuño, Gisela De León, and Marcela Martino of CEJIL, the organization that represents the alleged victim (hereinafter, the “representatives”), submitted before the Court a written brief containing pleadings, motions, and evidence, under the terms of Article 24 of the Rules of Procedure. The representatives sustained that the State was responsible for the violation of the same rights alleged by the Commission, though in connection with Articles 24, 1(1), and 2 of the Convention. In addition, they alleged the violation of Article 2 of the Convention against Torture. Finally, they requested the Court to order the State to adopt certain measures of reparation. 5. On April 23, 2010,4 the State submitted a brief containing the answer to the application along with its observations on the written brief of pleadings, motions, and evidence. In said brief, the State raised two preliminary objections related to the application filed by the Commission, namely, i) non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and ii) lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae in relation to the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture (infra Chapter III). Likewise, in its presentation of observations in relation to the representatives’ brief, the State put forward the following issues, which it called “preliminary matters”: i) the inadmissibility ratione materiae of new claims put forward by the representatives and ii) CEJIL’s legal standing in the representation of the alleged victim regarding the alleged violations of the obligations contained in the Convention against Torture (infra Chapter IV). In said brief, the State also expressed its objection to and denial of certain requests filed by the Commission and the representatives and made a partial acknowledgment of international responsibility (infra Chapter VI). The State requested the Court to declare that Panama did not have the obligation to repair in regard to the costs and expenses, except for the violations it expressly acknowledged. On December 11, 2009, the State appointed Mrs. Iana Quadri de Ballard as Agent and Mr. Vladimir Franco Sousa as its Deputy Agent. 6. On June 30, 2010, the representatives and the Commission forwarded their written responses to the preliminary objections and the partial acknowledgment of responsibility made by the State, in accordance with Article 38(4) of the Rules of Procedure. II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 7. Notice of the application was served on the State on November 11, 2000, andon the representatives on November 9, 2009. 8. By means of an Order of July 30, 20015 the President of the Court ordered that the testimony of seven witnesses and one expert witness be received by declarations made before a notary public (affidavit), and he convened the parties to a public hearing to listen to the statements of the alleged victim, a witness and three expert witnesses proposed by the Commission, the representatives and the State, as well as the oral arguments of the parties regarding the preliminary objections and possible merits, reparations, and costs. Also, by means of the Order of August 10, 2010,6 the President, in exercise of the authority vested in Article 50(3) of the Rules of 4 By means of note of May 31, 2010, the Secretariat put on record that on April 22, 2010, this Tribunal had problems with the receipt of communications sent electronically; therefore, it considered that the brief forwarded by the State on April 23, 2010, without attachments, was presented within the period of time granted for its submission. 5 See http://corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/velez.pdf 6 See http://corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/velez1.pdf