7 11. Observations on the preliminary objections. On March 5 and 6, 2013, the Commission and the representatives, respectively, presented their observations on the preliminary objections filed by the State. 12. Public hearing. In an Order of the President of March 7, 2014, 3 the Commission, the representatives and the State were convened to a public hearing in order to receive their final oral observations and arguments, respectively, on the preliminary objections and eventual merits, reparations and costs, as well as to receive the statements of an expert witness proposed by the Commission, a witness proposed by the representatives, and a witness proposed by the State. Also, in this Order, affidavits were required from two presumed victims, one witness and three expert witnesses proposed by the representatives, as well as three expert witnesses proposed by the State. The public hearing took place on April 4, 2014, during the fiftieth special session of the Court, which was held at its seat. 4 13. Amicus curiae. On April 10 and 15, 2014, the “Marisela Escobedo” Gender and Justice Clinic of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Mexico, and also Women’s Link Worldwide and the Legal Clinic of the Universidad de Valencia, respectively, submitted amicus curiae briefs, which were forwarded to the Commission and to the parties so that they could present any observations they deemed pertinent together with their final written observations and arguments. 14. Final written arguments and observations. On May 5, 2014, the State, the representatives, and the Commission forwarded their final written arguments and observations, respectively. The State and the representatives remitted diverse documentation with their briefs. On May 27, 2014, the Commission indicated that it had no comments to make on the attachments forwarded by the parties with their final written arguments. On May 30, 2014, the representatives and the State forwarded their comments on the attachments to the final written arguments of the other party. 15. Helpful evidence. On May 16, 2014, on the instructions of the Inter-American Court and pursuant to the provisions of Article 58(b) of its Rules of Procedure, the State and the representatives were asked to present documentation as helpful evidence. With communications of May 23 and 30, and June 2, 2014, the State forwarded the requested documentation, while the representatives forwarded the requested documentation with a brief dated June 2, 2014. On June 25, 26 and 27, 2014, the State, the representatives and the Commission, respectively, presented their observations on the helpful evidence. Since the Commission’s observations were presented belatedly, the Court will not assess them. 16. Disbursements in application of the Assistance Fund. On May 16, 2014, the report on the disbursements made in this case from the Court’s Legal Assistance Fund was sent to the State. On May 30, 2014, Peru presented its observations on the disbursements made from the fund. 17. Deliberation of this case. The Court initiated the deliberation of this Judgment on November 18, 2014. 3 Cf. Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Order of the President of March 7, 2014. Available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/espinoza_07_03_14.pdf 4 There appeared at this hearing: (a) for the Inter-American Commission: Silvia Serrano Guzmán and Erick Acuña Pereda, lawyers of the Commission’s Executive Secretariat; (b) for the representatives of the presumed victims: Gisela Astocondor, Jorge Ábrego, Alejandra Vicente and Gisela De León, and (c) for the State: Luis Alberto Huerta Guerrero, Special Supra-national Public Attorney, Agent; Iván Arturo Bazán Chacón and Mauricio Cesar Arbulú Castrillón, lawyers from the office of the Special Supra-national Attorney, Deputy Agents.