4. The Commission’s requests. Based on the foregoing, the Inter-American Commission asked the Court to conclude and declare the international responsibility of the State for the violations contained in its Merits Report and to order the State, as measures of reparation, to comply with the recommendations included in that report, which are described and analyzed in Chapter IX of this judgment. II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 5. Notification to the State and the representatives. The submission of the case was notified to the State and to the representatives of the presumed victims on September 2, 2019. 6. Brief with pleadings, motions and evidence. On November 6, 2019, the Colectiva Feminista para el Desarrollo Local of El Salvador and the Center for Reproductive Rights (hereinafter “the representatives”) presented their brief with pleadings, motions and evidence (hereinafter “the pleadings and motions brief”), pursuant to Articles 25 and 40 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. The representatives agreed with the Commission’s allegations, provided further information on the context of the criminalization of obstetric emergencies in El Salvador, and alleged that the State had also violated Articles 5, 7(4), 7(5), 8(2)(b), 13, 17 and 19 of the Convention. Furthermore, they classified what had happened to Manuela as torture and, therefore, alleged that El Salvador had also violated Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. Lastly, they asked the Court to order the State to adopt various measures of reparation and to reimburse certain costs and expenses. 7. Answering brief. On February 18, 2020, the State presented to the Court its brief answering the Commission’s submission of the case, and with observations on the pleadings and motions brief (hereinafter “the answering brief”). In this brief, the State presented three preliminary objections, and contested the alleged violations and the requests for measures of reparation submitted by the Commission and the representatives. 8. Public hearing. On December 2, 2020, the President of the Court issued an order in which she called the parties and the Commission to a public hearing on the preliminary objections, and eventual merits, reparations and costs.3 In addition, in this order, one presumed victim4 and one expert witness proposed by the representatives, and one expert witness proposed by the Commission were called on to provide their statements during the public hearing, and three presumed victims, six witnesses and five expert witnesses were required to present their statements by affidavit. The latter were presented on March 5 and 8, 2021. Furthermore, in this order, the President asked the State to submit certain documentary evidence, which El Salvador forwarded on February 4, 2021. Owing to the exceptional circumstances caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, the public hearing was held by videoconference, as established in the Court’s Rules of Procedure, on March 10 and 11, 2021, during the 140th regular session.5 In the course of this hearing, the Court’s judges asked the parties and the Commission to provide certain information and explanations. Cf. Case of Manuela et al. v. El Salvador. Call to a hearing. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 2, 2020. Available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/manuela_y otros_02_12_2020.pdf 3 In the order, the President required Manuela’s mother to appear at the public hearing. On February 18, 2021, the representatives requested a change in how this statement would be provided owing to her health. Consequently, and since the State had asked that this statement be provided in writing, the President agreed to the representatives’ request and ordered that Manuela’s mother provide her statement by affidavit, accompanied by a video. 4 At this hearing, there appeared: (a) for the Inter-American Commission: Margarette May Macaulay, Commissioner; Marisol Blanchard, Deputy Executive Secretary; Jorge Meza Flores and Christian González, Advisers; 5 5