7.
The brief of December 9, 2011, in which the State indicated the purpose of the
testimony of Ildefonso Rafael Finol Ocando, and forwarded the curriculum vitae of the
proposed expert witness.
8.
The notes of December 16, 2011, in which the Secretariat, on the instructions of the
President and in accordance with Article 46(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court
(hereinafter “the Rules of Procedure”), 1 asked the parties to forward, by January 10, 2012,
at the latest, their respective final lists of proposed deponents (hereinafter “final lists”) and
that, for reasons of procedural economy, they indicate those who could provide their
testimony or expert opinions by affidavit.
9.
The brief received on January 9, 2012, in which the State forwarded its final list,
confirming the offer of two witnesses and one expert witness, and requested that they
testify at a hearing.
10.
The brief of January 10, 2012, in which the Commission forwarded its final list,
reiterating the offer of expert evidence, and asked that one of the expert witnesses testify
at a hearing, while the other could do so by affidavit. In addition, it considered that both
expert opinions referred to matters of inter-American public order.
11.
The brief of January 10, 2012, in which the representatives forwarded their final list,
and asked that the testimony of three presumed victims, two witnesses and four expert
witnesses be received by affidavit, and that the statement of one presumed victim and three
expert opinions be provided at the public hearing.
12.
The notes of January 12, 2012, in which the Secretariat, on the instructions of the
President, forwarded the final lists to the parties and, in the terms of Article 46 of the Rules
of Procedure granted them 10 days as of receiving the said final lists to present any
observations they considered pertinent.
13.
The communication of January 18, 2012, with which the State sent a brief in which it
did not submit observations on the final lists, but asked that the Court reject the request to
incorporate the expert opinion provided by Magaly Vásquez at the public hearing in the case
of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela on June 29, 2011, that appears followed by the list of
expert testimony presented by the representatives.
14.
The communication of January 20, 2012, in which the Commission indicated that it
had no observations to make on the final lists presented by the parties, and asked for the
oral or written opportunity to question, as relevant, expert witness Claudia Samayoa.
15
The brief of January 20, 2012, in which the representatives did not present
observations on the final lists, but submitted clarifications on the documentary evidence in
this case.
CONSIDERING THAT:
1.
The offer and admission of evidence, and also the summoning of the presumed
victims, witnesses and expert witnesses are regulated in Articles 35(1)(f), 40(2)(c),
41(1)(c), 46(1), 50 and 57 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure.

1

2009.

Rules of Procedure approved by the Court at its eighty-fifth regular session held from November 16 to 28,

2

Select target paragraph3