II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 5. Notification to the State and the representatives. 1 The submission of the case was notified the State and to the representatives in a communication dated December 4, 2019. 6. Brief with pleadings, motions and evidence. On February 7 and 27, 2010, the representatives submitted their brief with pleadings, motions and evidence (hereinafter “pleadings and motions brief”), pursuant to Articles 25 and 40 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. The representatives agreed with the Commission’s arguments, complemented its line of reasoning and proposed specific reparations. 7. Extemporaneous submission of the answering brief. 2 On July 20, 2020, Chile submitted its response to the submission of the case and its observations to the pleadings and motions brief (hereinafter “answering brief”) extemporaneously. Consequently, said brief and its annexes were declared inadmissible. 3 8. Public hearing. In an order of March 3, 2021, 4 the President of the Court called the parties and the Commission to a public hearing which was held on May 12 and 13, 2021, during the Court’s 141st regular session, via videoconference. 5 9. Ex officio evidence. By order of the President of the Court of March 3, 2021, (supra para. 8), and by order of the Court of March 26, 2021, 6 pursuant to Article 58(a) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, the Court decided to summon ex officio the expert witnesses Gerhard Robbers, José Luis Lara and Paolo Carozza to testify before a notary public in the context of the present case. 10. Amici curiae. The Court received thirty-five amicus curiae briefs presented by: 1) the National Association of Evangelical Jurists; 7 2) Álvaro Paúl; 8 3) Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF); 9 4) the 1 The alleged victim was represented by Branislav Marelic and Ciro Colombara. The State appointed Jaime Chomali Garib, Francisco Javier Urbina Molfino, Carlos Enrique Arévalo Narváez and Juana Acosta López as its Agents. It also designated Karen Soledad Zacur López, Constanza Alejandra Richards Yañez and Oliver Román López Serrano as Alternate Agents. 2 3 In a note of the Secretariat dated July 24, 2020 (CDH-26-2019/021) and following the instructions of the President, the State was informed that a verification study was carried out with the Department of Information Technology of the Court, which concluded that no communication was received on July 10, 2020 from the State. The State filed 7 appeals for reconsideration against said decision before the President of the Court (July 24 and 31, August 4 and 15, 2020) and before the Plenary of the Court (September 9 and 30, and November 4, 2020). These appeals were settled and dismissed by the Presidency and the Court, respectively, and the aforementioned decisions were communicated through notes of the Secretariat (July 31, September 1, October 15, and November 26, 2020). Finally, in an Order dated March 26, 2021, the Court reiterated that the answering brief submitted by the State was inadmissible because it was time-barred. Cf. Case of Pavez Pavez v. Chile. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 26, 2021. 4 Cf. Case of Pavez Pavez v. Chile. Call to a hearing. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 3, 2021. http://www.Courtidh.or.cr/docs/matters/pavez_pavez_04_03_21.pdf 5 The following appeared at the hearing: a) for the Inter-American Commission: Joel Hernández García, IACHR Commissioner; Soledad García Muñoz, Special Rapporteur on Economic, Social, Cultural and Environmental Rights of the IACHR; Marisol Blanchard, Assistant Executive Secretary of the IACHR; Jorge Meza Flores, Adviser of the IACHR, and Analía Banfi Vique, Adviser of the IACHR; b) for the representatives: Ciro Colombara Lopez and Branislav Marelic Rokov, and c) for the State: Ambassador Jaime Chomali Garib, Francisco Javier Urbina, Constanza Richards Yáñez, Jose María Rodríguez Conca, Oliver Román López Serrano, Juana Acosta López, Carlos Arévalo Narváez, Cindy Vanessa Espitia, and Ana María Idárraga. 6 Cf. Case of Pavez Pavez v. Chile. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 26, 2021. http://www.Courtidh.or.cr/docs/matters/pavez_26_03_21.pdf Brief signed by Uziel Santana, Felipe Augusto, and Raíssa Martins on the secularism of the State, religious freedom and discrimination, and the rights of parents in relation to their children’s education. 7 8 Brief signed by Álvaro Paul versa religious freedom, separation between Church and State, and the right of parents to choose their children’s education. 9 Brief signed by Tomás Henriquez C. on the autonomy of religious communities to choose their teachers, and on freedom of religion. 4