6 8. Answering brief. On April 2, 2018, the State4 submitted to the Court its answer to the brief submitting the case and to the observations made to the brief of pleadings, motions and evidence (hereinafter “answering brief”). In its answering brief, the State referred to a series of “procedural matters,” including “the failure to exhaust domestic remedies” and “observations regarding the inappropriate inclusion of Article 26” by the representatives, and claimed that the State was not responsible for the alleged violation of the rights mentioned by the Commission and the representatives. 9. Observations to the preliminary objections. On June 4 and 5, 2018, the Commission and the representatives, respectively, forwarded their observations to the preliminary objections filed by the State. The representatives also referred to other aspects of the State’s answering brief, which were not requested. Therefore, the Court will not consider those aspects, since they were not submitted at the proper procedural moment, with the exception of the arguments related to the preliminary objections. 10. Final written proceeding. After assessing the main briefs submitted by the Commission and the parties, and in light of the provisions of Articles 15, 45 and 50(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, the President, in consultation with the plenary of the Court, decided that it was not necessary to call a public hearing in the present case for reasons of procedural economy. This decision was communicated in an Order of the President of the Court on July 27, 2018.5 11. Final written arguments and observations. On September 27, 2018, the representatives and the State forwarded their respective final written arguments, and the Commission presented its final written observations. Together with their brief of final arguments, the representatives presented various annexes (infra para. 39). 12. Request for provisional measures. On September 27, 2018, the representatives asked the Court to adopt provisional measures, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Convention, citing the extreme gravity and urgency of Mr. Muelle Flores’ situation and the need to avoid irreparable harm to him. On November 23, 2018, the Plenary of the Court decided to postpone a decision on that request. 13. Observations to the Annexes of the representatives. On October 12, 2018, the State forwarded its observations to the annexes submitted by the representatives. 14. Helpful evidence. On November 16 and December 3, 2018, the President of the Court asked the State to provide helpful evidence. Peru presented the requested documentation on November 30, and December 11, 2018, respectively. Also, in a brief dated December 20, 2018, the State announced its decision to restore ex officio, and on a provisional basis, the pension of Mr. Muelle Flores, together with his access to medical care through the social health insurance system, and informed the Court of its decision to make an advance payment of the amounts owed in pension In a communication of November 9, 2017, the State confirmed the appointment of Supranational Assistant Public Prosecutor, Iván Arturo Bazán Chacón, as agent, and Doris Margarita Yalle Jorges and Silvana Lucía Gómez Salazar as alternate agents. In communications dated February 19 and 21, 2018, the State confirmed the appointment of the lawyer Sofía Janett Donaires Vega as principal agent and the lawyer Sergio Manuel Tamayo Yañez as alternate agent in the case of Oscar Muelle Flores. 5 In that Order, the President of the Court also required the submission of the following testimonies, by affidavit: the presumed victim Oscar Muelle Flores; the witnesses offered by the representatives Vibeke Ann Muelle Jensen and Jesús Aníbal Delgado Flores; the expert witness proposed by the Commission, Christian Courtis, the expert witness offered by the representatives, Maria Virginia Brás Gomes, and the expert witness offered by the State, César Gonzáles Hunt. Likewise, the President ordered that financial assistance be provided through the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund of the Court. The statements requested by affidavit were received on August 27, 28 and 30, 2018. The statement of Mr. Muelle Flores was not forwarded as it was not possible to obtain it owing to his state of health. Likewise, the representatives withdrew the expert opinion of María Virginia Brás Gomes. Cf. Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru. Order of the President of the Court of July 27, 2018, paragraph 8. Available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/muelle_27_07_18.pdf 4