6 as established in Article 20(2) and 20(3) of the Rules of Procedure, the working language in this case would be French. On June 29, 2007, the Secretariat reminded the State and the representative that it had not received the brief with pleadings, motions and evidence or the brief answering the application, within the respective time frame. On July 26, 2007, the Secretariat informed the parties that, after examining the application submitted by the Commission, the Court in plenary session had considered that, in the circumstances of the case, it was not necessary to convene a public hearing. On August 9, 2007, the representative offered his apologies for failing to present a brief with pleadings, motions and evidence; he stated that he endorsed the facts and points of law established by the Commission in this case; he requested authorization “to submit additional information”; he asked that he be allowed to present “additional written requests” if the State did not present its answer to the application, and that a hearing be convened. On August 22, 2007, the Secretariat advised the representative that the time for submitting the said brief had expired; that, if he had additional information, he should submit this with his final arguments, and that the Court had already decided not to convene a hearing. Subsequently, the President ordered that the testimony of Yvon Neptune and Ronald Saint-Jean, together with the expert opinion of Serge Henri Vieux, and the informative statement of Mario Joseph, all of them offered by the Commission, be received via affidavits.26 The parties were given the opportunity to submit their observations on these documents. In a brief received by the Secretariat of the Court on September 4, 2007, the State indicated, inter alia, that “if the case file were reopened, the Government of the Republic would present its observations pursuant to Article 38 of the Rules of Procedure.” The Secretariat informed the State that, as had been mentioned previously, the proceedings in the instant case had continued even though, up until that time, the representative and the State had not submitted their respective briefs; that, in his Order, the President had indicated that, once the statements had been presented, the case file would be ready to consider the possibility of delivering judgment and recalled the time frame for submitting final arguments. The requested statements were presented. On September 30 and October 12, 2007, the representative and the Commission, respectively, submitted their final written arguments. 13. On October 3, 2007, the State presented a brief in which it made several assertions (supra para. 10 and infra para. 20). On October 29, 2007, pursuant to Article 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the parties were asked to submit useful information.27 On November 5, 2007, the representative submitted some of the requested information and, one week later, on the instructions of the President, the Secretariat asked the parties to forward the remaining information. 14. As previously indicated (supra para. 4), since the Court had been informed of a supervening fact – the decision of the Gonaïves Court of Appeal – and the State’s intention to submit Mr. Neptune to trial before the High Court of Justice, the Court issued an Order on November 29, 2007, in which it decided to conduct an ex officio procedure for taking 26 27 Cf. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 30, 2007. The parties were asked to submit, by November 5, 2007, at the latest and pursuant to al Article 45(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, the following information to be considered as helpful evidence: - the current status of any judicial or administrative investigation or any other proceedings of any nature filed in relation to the facts of the instant case; - the nature, procedure and scope of a possible hearing by the High Court of Justice, as well as the latter’s nature and composition, the applicable laws and the possible sanctions; whether such a hearing has already been initiated or is about to begin in relation to Mr. Neptune, and its possible effects in relation to the criminal proceedings against him; - the text of the April 13, 2007, decision of the Gonaïves Court of Appeal.