his expert opinion.” In this regard, the Court noted that it had previously granted an extension for the presentation of the sworn statements of the proposed expert witnesses, and that this new request would be a second extension to the deadline for receiving them. Thus, on the instructions of the President, the request was denied. The representatives and the State did not submit observations with regard to Mr. Canova’s expert opinion. 11. The public hearing took place on February 24, 2011, during the ninetieth regular session of the Court8 held at its seat in San José, Costa Rica. 12. The Court received an amicus curiae brief from the Association of the Bar of the City of New York9 on the scope of judicial guarantees and effective judicial protection in this case. 13. In a note dated March 4, 2011, the Secretariat of the Court asked the parties to submit with their final arguments the documentary and other evidence related to supervening facts that were mentioned in the oral arguments presented during the public hearing. In addition, on the instructions of the Court in plenary, the parties were asked to answer certain questions on different issues concerning this case.10 14. On March 24, 2011, the representatives, the Inter-American Commission, and the State submitted their final written arguments. On April 13, 2011, the representatives forwarded the corresponding attachments to their final arguments. On April 29 and May 2, 2011, the representatives and the Inter-American Commission, respectively, presented their observations on the arguments and evidence forwarded with the final arguments regarding the updated costs and expenses, and their answers to the questions posed by the judges of the Court during the public hearing. The State did not submit observations on the arguments and evidence submitted by the other parties in their final arguments. 8 The hearing was attended by the following: (a) for the Inter-American Commission: Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro, Commissioner, and Silvia Serrano Guzmán, advisor; (b) for the representatives: Carlos Ayala Corao; Rafael Chavero Gazdik and María Daniela Rivero, and (c) for the State: Germán Saltrón Negretti, Agent for the State for Human Rights; Enrique Sánchez, Lawyer of the Supreme Court of Justice, and Luisangela Andarcia, State lawyer. 9 The brief was submitted on February 28, 2011, by Stephen L. Kass, of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, International Human Rights Committee (merits file, volume II, folios 744 to 768). 10 The Court in plenary posed one question to the Inter-American Commission: (1) Does the Commission assume as a fact of the application any reference to the possible connection between Mrs. Chocrón’s removal and the decision adopted with regard to General Martínez? The representatives of the alleged victims were asked the following: (1) The Court’s case law has established some differences in the scope of the right to be heard in relation to the scope of the right of defense. In this case, why was the right to be heard violated? What is the difference between the argument submitted on the right of defense and the argument on the right to be heard? (2) How long did Mrs. Chocrón serve in the post to which she was appointed in 1982 as Judge Rapporteur of the First Instance Criminal Court of the Judicial Circuit of the Federal District and Miranda State? It was requested that pertinent documentary evidence be submitted, and (3) Was it argued in any of the administrative actions filed to defend Mrs. Chocrón in the domestic sphere that her removal was related to the judicial procedure ordered in relation to General Martínez? The State was asked the following questions: (1) If the “comments” made before the Judicial Commission can serve as grounds for annulling the appointment of a provisional or temporary judge, why does the State argue that they do not have a disciplinary connotation? (2) At the time of the facts in this case; in other words, in 2002 and 2003, what were the Judicial Commission’s procedures for appointing provisional and temporary judges? How are provisional and temporary judges appointed currently? (3) What law authorizes the Judicial Commission to annul the appointment of provisional and temporary judges? (4) Have public competitive examinations for posts been held since Mrs. Chocrón’s appointment was annulled? and (5) At what stage is the process of implementing the Ethics Code for Venezuela Judges? Have the disciplinary tribunals been established? If not, is there a timetable for their establishment? 6