-4- acknowledgement of international responsibility for the violation of the rights to life, personal integrity, honor and dignity, freedom of expression, political rights, judicial guarantees and judicial protection, “the terms and scope” of which it asked the Court to accept (infra Chapter II). It also asked the Court, if the preliminary objections were not admitted, to declare that, in the instant case, there was no State policy to murder Manuel Cepeda Vargas; that the existence of the alleged “coup de grâce” plan had not been proved, and that there had not been a systematic pattern of violence against the members of the UP “at the highest level.” In addition, it alleged that it was not responsible for the alleged violations of the rights recognized in Articles 16 and 22, or in Article 44, all of the American Convention. With regard to reparations, it asked that these should be limited to Senator Manuel Cepeda’s immediate family and that the Court accept the reparations offered by the State, including the compensation awarded in the proceedings under administrative law and, consequently, that it reject the additional measures of reparation requested by the Commission and the representatives. The State appointed Ángela Margarita Rey Anaya, Juana Inés Acosta López and Martha Cecilia Maya Calle as its Agents. B. Proceedings before the Court 6. Notice of the application was served to the State and to the representatives on February 3, 2009.3 On April 7, 2009, the State asked the Court, on a preliminary basis, to “make a precise delimitation of the specific facts that correspond” to this case. After receiving the observations of the representatives and of the Commission, the Court declared the State’s request irreceivable and decided to continue processing the case in an order of April 28, 2009.4 7. On September 5 and 11, 2009, the Commission and the representatives presented their observations on the preliminary objections. On October 20, 2009, the State referred to the representatives’ brief with observations on the objections, which was not admitted, because the Rules of Procedure do not provide for it, and it had not been requested. 8. In an order of December 22, 2009, the President of the Court required the presentation of the statements of some of the witnesses and expert witnesses by affidavit, and summoned the parties to a public hearing to hear the testimony of other witnesses and expert witnesses proposed by the Commission, the representatives, and the State, together with the oral arguments of the parties on the preliminary objections, and possible merits and reparations. Lastly, the President granted the parties until March 1, 2010, to submit their final written arguments.5 This order was contested on January 7 and 9, 2010, by the representatives6 and by the Commission.7 3 For a more detailed description of the proceedings up until April 2009, see the order issued by the InterAmerican Court on April 28, 2009, available [in Spanish] at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/asunto_ cepeda_1.pdf. 4 Cf. Order issued by the Inter-American Court on April 28, 2009 (supra note 3). 5 Cf. Order issued by the President of the Inter-American Court on December 22, 2009. 6 The representatives contested the said order, “insofar as it rejects the expert opinion of Mario Madrid Malo offered by the representatives and the Commission.” 7 The Commission “proposed to the Court in plenary that it reconsider the President’s decision […], regarding the request to substitute the expert witness” Roberto Garretón for the expert opinion of Juan E. Méndez made by the Commission when presenting its final list of witnesses and expert witnesses offered in this case.”