2
7.
The communication of August 21, 2012, by which the Illustrious State of
Suriname submitted its brief on preliminary objection and answer to the brief of
submission of the case, without offering any testimonial evidence.
8.
The communications of September 20 and 26, 2012, by which the
Representative and the Commission respectively submitted their observations on the
preliminary objection posed by the State.
9.
The communication of October 2, 2012, by which the Secretariat, following the
instructions of the President of the Court, informed the parties that the Tribunal will
only consider the arguments submitted by the representative related to the preliminary
objection submitted by the State.
10.
The communication of October 19, 2012, by which the Secretariat required the
parties to submit their definitive list of declarants, in accordance with article 46(1) of
the Inter-American Court of Human Right’s Rules of Procedure.
11.
The communication of November 1, 2012, by which the Secretariat informed
the alleged victim that given the fact that he had not submitted the brief containing
pleadings, motion and evidence, he was precluded from submitting a definitive list of
declarants.
12.
The communication of November 2, 2012, by which the Representative
withdrew submission of a list of declarants taking into consideration the
communication of the Secretariat of November 1, 2012 (supra Having Seen para. 11).
13.
The communications of November 5, 2012, by which the State of Suriname
submitted its definitive list of witnesses and proposed that two declarations be
rendered through sworn written statement (affidavits) and by which the InterAmerican Commission reiterated its offering of one expert opinion.
14.
The communication of November 9, 2012, in which the Secretariat noted that
the State did not submit its list of declarants as required in Article 41(1)(c), that is, at
the appropriate procedural moment (in its brief on the preliminary objection and
answer to the brief of submission of the case) and, in addition, noted that the State did
not indicate the object of the witness statements. Additionally, following the
instructions of the President, the Secretariat informed the parties that they had until
November 20, 2012, to submit observations to the definitive lists of declarants.
15.
The communication of November 20, 2012, by which the Inter-American
Commission submitted its objections to the list of declarants presented by the State.
CONSIDERING THAT:
1.
The admission and procedure for taking evidence is governed by articles 35(1)
(f), 40(2)(c), 41(1)(c), 46, 50, 57, and 58 of the Rules of Procedure.
2.
The Inter-American Commission offered the expert testimony of Mr. Héctor
Olásolo; the representative did not submit a list of declarants (supra Having Seen