some of the judges of the Court.”3 Moreover, the State denied its international responsibility for the violation of the rights argued by the other parties. The State appointed Mr. Germán Saltrón Negreti as Agent in this case. II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 7. By way of the Order of December 23, 2010,4 the President (hereinafter "the President") ordered the submission of sworn statements rendered before a notary public (affidávit) of a witness proposed by the State and four expert witnesses, two proposed by the Commission, one proposed by the representatives, and the other by the State. Moreover, the President summoned the parties to a public hearing to hear the statements of the alleged victim, proposed by the Commission; of one witness proposed by the State; and of four experts, two proposed by the representatives and two by the State; as well as to hear the final oral arguments of the parties on the merits and possible reparations and costs in this case. 8. On January 25, 2011, the Inter-American Commission reported that Mr. Fabián Aguinaco Bravo, expert witness proposed by it, "regrettably, did not [have] 'the time necessary to draft the [expert report] required" in the Order of December 23, 2010 (supra para. 7). Therefore, the Commission "request[ed] the substitution of [Mr.] Aguinaco Bravo with [Mr.] Pedro Salazar Ugarte, […], in order for the latter to make reference to the same points in the expert report." In this regard, by means of a note of the Secretariat on January 31, 2011, it was noted that: i) the Commission filed a list of final declarants on November 8, 2010, wherein it confirmed the proposal for the expert witness, Mr. Aguinaco; ii) legal notice of the summons order to the public hearing was given to the parties on December 23, 2010, and a period of more than one month was granted to present the expert reports; iii) on January 4, 2011, the Commission requested an extension in order to present the statements before a notary public of the experts summoned in the Order and did not allude to the situation of Mr. Aguinaco—request which was granted, and iv) a clear and specific situation of force majuere was not argued to justify the granting of this request. Given the above mentioned, the request for substitution is denied. 9. The public hearing was held on March 1 and 2, 2011, during the 90th Regular Period of Sessions of the Court,5 carried out at the seat of the Court, in the city of San Jose, Costa Rica. 3 The President in exercise of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Judge Alberto Pérez Pérez, issued an Order on September 3, 2010, in relation to preliminary objection filed in the answer to the application. In this order, inter alia, he declared that “the allegation of bias in the role of the Judges that make up the Court, presented by the State as a preliminary objection is not of that nature.” Similarly, he stated that it corresponds that the Court, as a whole, to continue hearing the case until it is concluded. Case of López Mendoza V. Venezuela. Order of the President in exercise of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of Septemeber 3, 2010. Available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/López.pdf 4 Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 23, 2010. Available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/López1.pdf 5 At the hearing, the following were present: a) for the Inter-American Commission: Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro, Commissioner; Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, Deputy Executive Secretary; Lilly Ching Soto, legal advisor, and Silvia Serrano Guzmán, legal advisor; b) for the representatives: José Antonio Maes, Enrique J. Sánchez Falcón, Carlos Vecchio, Bernardo Pulido Márquez, and Juan Carlos Gutiérrez, and c) for the State: Germán Saltrón Negretti, State Agent for Human Rights; Alexander Elías Pérez Abreu; Luisangela Andarcia, Attorney of the State Agency, and Mónica Gioconda Misticchio Tortorella. 7