5. On May 18, 2010, the State submitted its brief filing a preliminary objection, answering the application and with observations on the pleadings and motions brief (hereinafter “answer to the application”) in the terms of Article 39 of the Rules of Procedure. In this brief, the State filed the following preliminary objections: (i) “partiality in the functions performed by some of the Judges of the Court,”6 and (ii) “need to exhaust the remedies provided by the Venezuelan legal system.” In addition, the State denied its international responsibility with regard to the violation of the rights alleged by the other parties. The State appointed Germán Saltrón Negretti as its Agent in this case. 6. Pursuant to Article 38(4) of the Rules of Procedure, on October 1, 2010, the Commission and the representatives presented their arguments with regard to the preliminary objection filed by the State (supra para. 5), in which they asked the Court to dismiss the objection and proceed to examine the merits of the case. II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 7. The State and the representatives were notified of the application on December 23 and 28, 2009, respectively. 8. In an Order of December 16, 2010,7 the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”) ordered that the testimony of two expert witnesses proposed by the Commission be received by affidavit. In addition, he ordered that a copy of the affidavits made by Jesús María Casal Hernández, Param Cumaraswamy and Román Duque Corredor, expert witnesses proposed by the Commission in the case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, be sent to the representatives and the State so that they could submit any observations they deemed pertinent. He also ordered that a copy of the affidavits made by José Zeitune and Alberto Arteaga Sánchez, expert witnesses proposed by the representatives in the case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, be forwarded to the Inter-American Commission and the State so that they could submit any observations they deemed pertinent. Finally, the President convened the parties to a public hearing to hear the testimony of the alleged victim, proposed by the Commission, and of a witness proposed by the representatives, as well as the final oral arguments on the preliminary objection and possible merits, reparations and costs in this case. 9. On January 12, 2011, the Inter-American Commission indicated that it had no observations to make on the expert opinions forwarded with the Order of December 16, 2010 (supra para. 8). The representatives and the State did not submit observations on the said expert opinions. 10. On January 20, 2011, the Inter-American Commission “submit[ted] the sworn statement of expert witness Antonio Canova González” and “requested an extension” of the time frame for sending the sworn statement of expert witness Leandro Despouy, “because [he had ...] advise[d] that he was unable to complete 6 Cf. The acting President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Judge Alberto Pérez Pérez, issued the Order of September 3, 2010, concerning this preliminary objection submitted in the answer to the application. In the Order, he declared “that the alleged lack of impartiality in the functions performed by some of the Judges who make up the Court, submitted by the State as a preliminary objection, was inexistent.” In addition, he determined that it was for the Court, in plenary session, to continue hearing the entire case up until its conclusion. Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela. Order of the acting President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 3, 2010. Available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/chocron.pdf 7 Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 16, 2010. 5