-56. Inadmissibility of the brief with pleadings, motions and evidence. On November 10, 2017, the representative submitted, extemporaneously, his brief with pleadings, motions and evidence.9 On December 6, 2017, the Secretariat, following the instructions of the President of the Court and in application of Article 40 of the Rules of Procedure, advised that said brief was inadmissible and, consequently, it was not transmitted to the State and the Commission nor was it included in the case file; thus, the deadline for the State to submit its response began to apply as of that last date. 7. Answering brief and acknowledgement of responsibility.10 On February 5, 2018, the State submitted its brief in response to the submission of the case (hereinafter “answer” or “answering brief”), in which also acknowledged its international responsibility. 8. Observations on the acknowledgement of responsibility. On March 1, 2018, the representative and the Commission presented their observations on said acknowledgement. 9. Decision not to open oral proceedings. On March 15, 2018, the Secretariat announced that, pursuant to Article 45 of the Rules of Procedure,11 the Plenary of the Court had evaluated the Merits Report submitted by the Commission as well as the State’s answering brief and acknowledgement of responsibility. Thus, after confirming that the parties and the Commission agreed that the dispute on the merits has ceased, and without prejudice to the provisions of Article 62 of the Rules of Procedure, the Court decided that it was not necessary to call a hearing or to receive the opinion offered by the Commission. Furthermore, in relation to a “suggestion” by the representative that the Court propose a friendly settlement agreement to the parties, it was noted that the Court had not been informed of any agreement between the parties. Accordingly, the representative, the State and the Commission were granted a non-extendable deadline of April 16, 2018, to submit their final written arguments and final written observations, respectively, in relation to reparations. 10. Final written arguments and observations. On April 16, 2018, the parties and the Commission submitted their final written arguments and final written observations, respectively.12 11. Deliberation of the instant case. The Court began deliberation of this judgment on November 29, 2018. Commission; that some alleged victims are deceased; that most of them had granted powers of attorney to the representative; and that the representative had expressed his willingness to continue representing all the alleged victims and that he would provide the respective documents as soon as possible or, in any case, would continue to act as unofficial agent. According to the respective records, the brief of submission of the case was notified to the representative on September 1, 2017, and that same day it was dispatched via courier together with all the annexes, which were received by the representative on September 6. In other words, on the following day, the two-month non-extendable term for the filing of the pleadings, motions and evidence brief began to run. The aforementioned brief of the representative was received by the Court on November 10, 2017 and the annexes thereto were received on that same day and on November 30, i.e., it was submitted outside the procedural term established in Article 40 of the Rules of Procedure. 9 On October 3, 2017, the State of Chile, through the Minister of Foreign Relations, pursuant to Articles 23 and 39(3) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, appointed Hernán Quezada Cabrera, Óscar Alcaman Riffo, Sebastián Cabezas Chamorro and Diana Maquilón Tamayo as its agents for this case, as well as Beatriz Contreras, Isidora Rojas Fermandois, Oliver López Serrano and Juan Pablo González Jansana, as alternate agents. After the response, on February 13, 2018, the State announced that Mr. Quezada Cabrera and Mr. Cabezas Chamorro, as well as Mr. Juan Pablo González Jansana, would continue as agents and that Mrs. Contreras and Mr. López Serrano would continue as alternate agents. On April 13, 2018, the State announced that Juan Pedro Pablo Crisóstomo Merino, Gonzalo Fernando Candia Falcón and Juan Pablo González Jansana would act as agents and Mr. López Serrano and Ms. Consuelo Catalina Klaassen Burdiles as alternate agents. 10 In its communication, the Secretariat recalled that Article 45 of the Rules of Procedure affirms the power of the Court or its President to determine the relevance and necessity of convening a hearing in each case, which shall be exercised with reasons and in a manner consistent with the characteristics of the case, the procedural requirements deriving therefrom and the due preservation of the rights of the parties. 11 In addition, the representative and the Commission were granted a period to present their observations on the documents submitted by the State as annexes to its final written arguments. After an extension was granted, the Commission stated that it had no observations. On May 2, 2018, the representative submitted his observations. On May 29, the State asked that the representative's observations be disregarded and that the annex thereto not be admitted. In a note from the Secretariat dated May 31, 2018, it was announced that the request of the State would be brought to the attention of the President of the Court and decided in due course. 12