62nd special session held in Barranquilla, Colombia.5 During the hearing, the Court’s judges asked the parties and of the Commission to provide certain information and explanations. 11. Amici curiae. The Court received eight amicus curiae briefs presented by: (1) the Únicxs Free Legal Clinic of the Faculty of Law at the Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú;6 (2) the Coalition of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Travesti, Transgender, Transsexual and Intersex Organizations of the Americas before the OAS (LGBTTTI Coalition);7 (3) students and professors at Boston College Law School;8 (4) European Region of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA-Europe);9 (5) the No Tengo Miedo organization;10 (6) the Centre on Law and Social Transformation;11 (7) the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI),12 and (8) Juan Pablo Pérez León Acevedo.13 12. Final written arguments and observations. On September 30, 2019, the State, the representatives and the Commission, forwarded their final written arguments and observations, respectively, together with the annexes. 14 13. Supervening facts. On May 24, 2019, and February 3, 2020, the representatives forwarded information on supervening facts concerning the actual situation of the presumed victim and the status of the investigation opened following the issue of the Merits Report. The State and the Commission presented their observations in this regard. There appeared at this hearing: (a) for the Inter-American Commission; Luis Ernesto Vargas, Commissioner, and Jorge H. Meza Flores, Analía Banfi Vique and Piero Vásquez, IACHR Legal Advisers; (b) for the representatives of the presumed victims: Ana María Vidal Carrasco, Deputy Executive Secretary of the National Human Rights Coordinator, Gabriela Oporto Patroni, Coordinator of Strategic Litigation of the Centro de Promoción y Defensa de los Derechos Sexuales y Reproductivos, Clara Sandoval, REDRESS Consultant for this case, and Alejandra Vicente, Head of Law, REDRESS, and (c) for the State of Peru: Carlos Redaño Balarezo, Supranational Special Public Attorney and Agent in this case, Silvana Gómez and Carlos LLaja, lawyers of the Supranational Special Public Attorney’s Office and Deputy Agents in this case. 5 The brief was signed by Renata Bregaglio Lazarte, María Alejandra Espino and María Susana Barrenechea. The brief describes the situation of LGBTI people in Peru. 6 The brief was signed by Fanny Gómez-Lugo, Juan Felipe Rivera Osorio, María Daniela Díaz Villamil, María Alejandra Medina Ubajoa and Robinson Sánchez Tamayo. The brief describes the situation of LGBTI people in Peru and includes legal considerations on the protection of gender expression. 7 The brief was signed by Susan Simone Kang, Daniela Urosa, Milena Cuadra Seas and Liliana Mamani Condori. The brief refers to the facts of this case. 8 The brief was signed by Evelyne Paradis. The brief refers to the State obligation to conduct investigations into acts of violence or abuse, especially in cases involving LGBTI people. 9 10 The brief was signed by María Lucía Muchuca Rose. The brief describes the situation of LGBTI people in Peru. The brief was signed by Camila Gianella Malca. The brief refers to care for victims of torture, and the transgender population in Peru. 11 The brief was signed by Baroness Helena Kennedy. The brief describes how discrimination may be used as an element of intent and purpose in torture, especially in cases of discrimination based on sexual orientation. 12 The brief was signed by Juan Pablo Pérez León Acevedo. The brief refers to sexual violence as an act of torture, and uses case law of both the Inter-American Court and the European courts to establish that sexual violence may be an act of torture. 13 The Court notes that the representatives’ brief with final arguments was submitted unsigned on September 30, 2019. On October 1, 2019, the representatives forwarded a signed copy of this brief. The State argued that, according to Article 28 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, the representatives must provide their final written arguments not only by electronic means, but also send the original brief to the Court and the Court must receive this within 21 days of the expiry of the time frame for submission of these arguments. The Court considered that the presentation of the signed version of the brief by electronic means was sufficient, without it being necessary to send the original copy of the brief. 14 6