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