7.
The briefs of November 30, 2012, in which the Inter-American Commission and the
representatives submitted, respectively, their definitive lists of deponents and indicated
which deponents could render their statements by affidavit and which deponents should be
summoned to testify at a public hearing.
8.
The note of December 4, 2012, in which the Secretariat, following the instructions of
the President of the Court, granted the parties a period of 10 days to submit any
observations deemed pertinent to the definitive lists of deponents presented by the
Commission and the representatives.
9.
The brief of December 12, 2012, in which the State requested an extension of the
deadline to present its observations to the definitive lists of deponents of the
representatives and of the Inter-American Commission (supra Having Seen 7). In the note
of December 13, 2012, the Secretariat, following the instructions of the President of the
Court, granted the State’s request and extended the deadline to December 17, 2012.
10.
The communication of December 12, 2012, in which the Inter-American Commission
stated that it had no observations to make to the definitive list of deponents submitted by
the representatives and requested an opportunity to question six of the expert witnesses
offered by them. Also, the brief of December 17, 2012, in which the State submitted its
observations to the definitive list of deponents of the representatives and objected to Mrs.
Laura Dolores Sobredo, the expert witness offered by them. Neither the State nor the
representatives presented observations to the only expert opinion offered by the InterAmerican Commission.
11.
The note of the Secretariat of December 17, 2012, in which the expert witness Laura
Dolores Sobredo was asked to submit her observations to the State’s arguments regarding
her disqualification (supra Having Seen 10), no later than December 19, 2012.
Mrs.
Sobredo did not submit any observations.
CONSIDERING THAT:
1.
The offer and admission of evidence, as well as the formal summons of the alleged
victims, witnesses and expert witnesses, are regulated under Articles 35(1)(f), 40(2)(c),
41(1) (c), 46, 48, 50, 57 and 60 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure.
2.
The Commission offered as evidence one expert opinion and the representatives
offered the statements of one witness, six alleged victims and ten expert opinions. The
evidence was offered at the proper procedural stage (supra Having Seen 1 and 4). For its
part, the State did not offer any testimonial or expert evidence (supra Having Seen 5).
3.
The Court guaranteed the parties the right to defense in respect of the offers of
evidence contained in their briefs submitting the case and in the brief of pleadings and
motions, as well as in the definitive lists of deponents (supra Having Seen 8 to 12). The
Commission did not present any observations to the definitive list of deponents of the
representatives. The State only presented observations to the expert opinions offered by
the representatives and objected to one of these. Neither the representatives nor the State
presented observations to the expert evidence offered by the Inter-American Commission.
4.
The President notes that neither the Commission nor the State submitted
observations to the statements of Nilda Maldonado de Gutiérrez, Nilda Gutiérrez, Francisco
Virgilio Gutiérrez, Jorge Gabriel Gutiérrez, David Gutiérrez and Marilín Gutiérrez, alleged

Select target paragraph3