5. Request of the Inter-American Commission. Based on the foregoing, the Commission asked the Court to conclude and declare the international responsibility of the State for the human rights violations indicated in its Merits Report and to order the State to implement the reparation measures included in said report. II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 6. Notification of the case to the State and the representatives. The submission of the case by the Commission was notified to the State2 and the representatives3 on September 23, 2020. 7. Brief with pleadings, motions and evidence. On November 24, 2020, the representatives of the alleged victim (hereinafter “the representatives”) submitted their brief with pleadings, motions and evidence (hereinafter “pleadings and motions brief”), pursuant to Articles 25 and 40 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court. The representatives endorsed the violations alleged by the Commission, agreeing that the State was responsible for the violation of the aforementioned articles of the Convention. However, in their petition they did not refer to Articles 9 and 25(1) of the Convention. 8. Answering brief. On February 8, 2021, the State submitted to the Court its brief containing preliminary objections, its answer to the submission of the case by the Commission, as well as its observations on the pleadings and motions brief (hereinafter “answering brief”). In said brief, the State raised two preliminary objections and denied its international responsibility with respect to Articles 1(1), 2, 9, 13 and 25(1) of the Convention. 9. Observations on the preliminary objections. On April 23 and April 26, 2021, respectively, the representatives and the Commission submitted their observations on the preliminary objections filed by the State. 10. Call to a public hearing. In an order of May 27, 2022, the President of the Court called the parties and the Commission to a public hearing on the preliminary objections and possible merits, reparations and costs.4 11. Public hearing. The public hearing was held on June 20, 2022, during the Court’s 149th Regular Session which took place in San José, Costa Rica.5 During the hearing, the Court 2 On October 26, 2020 the State appointed Juan Pablo Crisóstomo Merino, Francisco Javier Urbina Molfino and Constanza Alejandra Richards Yáñez as its agents, and Oliver Román López Serrano, Sebastian Andrés Lemp Donoso and Josemaría Rodríguez Conca as alternate agents. On February 2, 2021 the State appointed Ambassador Jaime Chomali Garib as agent in replacement of Juan Pablo Crisóstomo Merino. On May 18, 2022 the State designated Ambassador Tomás Ignacio Pascual Ricke, Director of Human Rights of the Ministry of Foreign Relations, and Pamela Paz Olivares, Oliver Román López Serrano and Lorena Pérez Roa, as alternate agents, in replacement of the persons accredited. On June 9, 2022, the State designated José Ignacio Escobar Opazo as alternate agent. On July 27, 2022 the State appointed Catalina Fernández Carter as alternate agent, in replacement of Lorena Pérez Roa. 3 The alleged victim is represented by Cristian Gustavo Riego Ramírez and Cristián Sanhueza Cubillos of the Public Interest and Human Rights Action Clinic of the Diego Portales University. 4 Cf. Case of Baraona Bray v. Chile. Call to a hearing. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 27, 2022. Available at: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos /baraona_bray_27_05_22.pdf 5 The following persons appeared at the hearing: a) for the Inter-American Commission: José Vaca Villarreal, Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression; and Erick Acuña Pereda, adviser; b) for the representatives: Cristian Sanhueza Cubillos, Juan Pablo Olmedo, and Andrea Ruiz, lawyers, respectively, of the Public Interest and Human Rights Action Clinic, of the Diego Portales University, and c) for the State: Tomás Pascual Ricke, Ambassador and Director of Human Rights of the Ministry of Foreign Relations; Oliver Román López Serrano; Pamela Olivares Sandoval and José Ignacio Escobar Opazo. 5