4. Requests of the Inter-American Commission. Based on the foregoing, the Commission asked the Court to declare the international responsibility of the State for the violation of the rights established in Articles 8(1) (judicial guarantees), 11 (privacy), 24 (equality before the law) and 25(1) (judicial protection) of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations enshrined in Article 1(1) of the same instrument. The Commission also requested that the Court order the State to implement measures of reparation, which are described and analyzed in Chapter IX of this judgment. II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 5. Notification to the representatives and the State. The Court notified the submission of the case by the Commission to the representatives of the alleged victim (hereinafter “the representatives”) 4 and to the State on July 16, 2021. 6. Brief with pleadings, motions and evidence. On September 16, 2021, the representatives of the alleged victim submitted to the Court their brief with pleadings, motions and evidence (hereinafter “pleadings and motions brief”). The representatives agreed substantially with the arguments made by the Commission and asked the Court to declare the State’s international responsibility for the violation of the same articles indicated by the Commission and, in addition, for the violation of Articles 7 (right to free development of the personality) and 13(1) (right to freedom of expression) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. 7. Answering brief. On December 14, 2021, the State submitted to the Court its brief containing preliminary objections, its answer to the submission of the case by the Commission, and its observations on the pleadings and motions brief (hereinafter “the answering brief”). In this brief, the State raised five preliminary objections, denied responsibility for the alleged violations and dismissed the requests for measures of reparation made by the Commission and the representatives. 8. Observations on the preliminary objections. On February 9, 2022, the representatives and the Commission submitted their observations on the preliminary objections. 9. Public hearing. In an order dated June 30, 2022, 5 the President of the Court called the State, the representatives and the Commission to a public hearing to receive their final oral arguments and observations on the preliminary objections and possible merits, reparations and costs, and to hear the statements of the alleged victim, an expert legal advisers. 4 The alleged victim was represented by DEMUS - Estudio para la Defensa de los Derechos de la Mujer (Study for the Defense of Women’s Rights), Synergía – Iniciativas para los Derechos Humanos (Synergy – Initiatives for Human Rights) and Líderes en Acción (Leaders in Action) 5 Cf. Case of Olivera Fuentes v. Peru. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 30, 2002. Available at: www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/olivera_fuentes_30_06_22.pdf 5