the Court.”1 The Court notes with concern that 20 years had elapsed between the lodging of the initial petition before the Commission and the submission of the case to the Court. 4. Requests of the Commission. – The Commission requested that the Court declare the international responsibility of the State for the violations identified in its Merits Report. It also asked that the Court order diverse measures of reparation, which are detailed and analyzed in Chapter VIII of this judgment. With respect to Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, it requested that the Court declare its violation for the acts that occurred as of the date of ratification of that treaty by Argentina. II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 5. Notification to the State and to the representative. – The submission of the case was notified to the State2 and to the representative of the alleged victims3 on April 13, 2021. 6. Pleadings, motions and evidence brief. – On May 18, 2021, the representative presented his pleadings, motions and evidence brief (hereinafter “pleadings and motions brief”), pursuant to the terms of Articles 25 and 40 of the Rules of the Court. The representative substantially concurred with the Commission’s conclusions. In addition, he requested various measures of reparation. 7. Answering brief. – On August 20, 2021, the State presented its answering brief in response to the submission of the case and to the pleadings and motions brief, in which it recognized its international responsibility by “accepting the considerations of fact and of law contained in the Report on the Merits.” 8. Final written proceedings and the proceeding to receive statements. – By Order of March 4, 2022,4 the President of the Court, in view of the State’s recognition of responsibility and in accordance with the authority granted by Articles 15(1), 45 and 50(1) of the Rules, decided not to call a public hearing and, in its place, convoke the Commission and the parties to a public proceeding to receive two statements,5 as well as to request that the testimony of an expert be received by affidavit.6 On May 20, 2022, the Court received the statements of the alleged victims Ezequiel Martín Avaro and Vanina Verónica Avaro in a public proceeding convoked for that purpose, which was held virtually by means of a video conference. 1 The Commission appointed Commissioner Julissa Mantilla Falcón as its delegate. It also named Marisol Blanchard Vera and Jorge Humberto Meza Flores and Analía Banfi Vique, who at the time were the Deputy Executive Secretary and Specialists, respectively, of its Secretariat as legal advisors. 2 By communication of May 18, 2021, as its Agent in this case Argentina named Alberto Javier Salgado, Director of the international Human Rights Litigation Office of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Gonzalo Bueno, Legal Advisor of the International Human Rights Litigation Office of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Andrea Pochak, Under Secretary of International Protection and Liaison of the Secretariat of Human Rights; Gabriela Kletzel, Director of the Office of International Legal Affairs in the area of Human Rights of the Secretariat of Human Rights and Rodrigo Albano Robles Tristán, Legal Advisor of the Office of International Legal Affairs in the area of Human Rights of the Secretariat of Human Rights, as Alternate Agents. 3 The representative of the alleged victims is René Federico Garrís. 4 Cf. Case of Brítez Arce et al. v. Argentina. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of March 4, 2022. 5 Arce. 6 The statements of Ezequiel Martín Avaro and Vanina Verónica Avaro, son and daughter of Cristina Brítez Expert opinion of Regina Tamés Noriega, proposed by the Commission. 5