6. On December 28, 2010, the Dominican Republic submitted to the Court its brief with preliminary objections, in answer to the application and with observations on the pleadings and motions brief (hereinafter “answering brief”). In this brief, the State filed five preliminary objections (infra para. 14) and, alternatively, asked the Court to declare that “it had not incurred international responsibility for the alleged forced disappearance of Mr. González Medina,” and was not responsible for the alleged violations against the members of his family. In addition, “subsidiarily,” the Dominican Republic asked the Court, “if it determined that the facts alleged in the application and in the brief with pleadings, motions and evidence are true, […] not to admit the reparations requested by the representatives of the [alleged] victims.” The State appointed José Marcos Iglesias Iñigo as its Agent for the instant case and, in its answering brief, appointed Bolívar Sánchez, as Deputy Agent, and Frank E. Soto Sánchez, José Dantes Díaz, Mayerlyn Cordero, Danissa Cruz, José R.L. Casado and Ricardo D. Ruiz Cepeda, as legal advisers. II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 7. In an order of February 23, 2011, the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”) admitted the request filed by the alleged victims, through their representatives, to be allowed to use the Legal Assistance Fund (supra para. 5), and approved that the necessary financial assistance be granted for the presentation of a maximum of three testimonies (infra para. 9). 8. On March 9 and 12, 2011, the Inter-American Commission and the representatives, respectively, presented their observations on the preliminary objections filed by the State (supra para. 6) and asked the Court to reject them. In their brief, the representatives also asked the Court to issue “an accessory order” so as to eliminate certain arguments and evidence presented by the State. 10 9. On June 3, 2011, the President of the Court issued an Order, 11 in which he required the testimony of three alleged victims, eight witnesses, and six expert witnesses to be received by affidavit, and the latter were presented on June 22 and 23, 2011. 12 Also, in this Order, the President convened the parties to a public hearing (infra para. 11), and ruled on the representatives’ request that the Court reject certain arguments and evidence presented by the State (supra para. 8). 13 Lastly, the President took decisions regarding the Legal Assistance Fund (supra para. 7). 10 The representatives asked the Court to “order the elimination of the argument and opinions concerning the possible suicide of Narciso González during the public hearing and at all subsequent stages of the litigation on the merits of this case,” in order to “avoid the re-victimization of the [alleged] victims.” 11 3, 2011. 12 Cf. Case of González Medina and family v. Dominican Republic. Order of the President of the Court of June The State did not forward the sworn statements of the witnesses Jimmy Sierra and Bolívar Sierra. 13 The President decided that “[t]he Court w[ould] assess the observations and objections of the representatives regarding certain arguments and evidence offered by the State at the respective procedural opportunity. Consequently, as he has previously, […he] consider[ed] that, at th[at] procedural stage, it [was] not appropriate to decide to exclude evidence and arguments submitted by the State to explain or reject the facts and claims set out by the Commission and the representatives. Thus, to ensure the proper evolution of the proceedings, the President order[ed] that any evidence which could, in principle, be pertinent be received, taking into consideration the facts that the parties are arguing and trying to prove, without this implying a decision or a prejudgment of the merits of the case. The evidence and arguments that form part of the State’s position in these proceedings w[ould] be examined and assessed by the Court at the appropriate stage.” 6