5 5. On September 5, 2008 the State, represented by Mrs. Agent, Delia Muñoz Muñoz, filed the brief containing the response to the petition and the observations to the brief of pleadings and motions (hereinafter, "response to the petition”) in which the State objected to the Court’s competence ratione materiae pointing out that the Court “lacks competence to hear and deliberate on rights of an economic, social and cultural nature”. In the brief of final arguments, the State explained that the preliminary objection is based on “the Court’s lack of competence ratione materiae in matters concerning the alleged violation to the right of social security and that it should only analyze and eventually declare the international responsibility of the State in relation to the right to judicial protection and property enshrined in the Convention”. Furthermore, the State pointed out that it is not responsible for the alleged violations “given the fact that since the year 2002 [...] it had been paying pegged remunerations to the alleged victims [,] all of them [,] as ordered by the judgments mentioned”, and rejected the “obligation to pay the amounts owed since it is not contained […] in the judgments of the Constitutional Court”. Finally, the State required the Court to declare the request of reparations and reimbursement of costs and expenses to be contrary to law and unfounded. In accordance with Article 37(4) of the Rules of Procedure, on October 10 and 21, 2008 the representative and the Commission, respectively, presented their arguments on the preliminary objection raised by the State, and requested the Court to reject it. II PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COURT 6. On May 5, 2008 the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter, the “Secretariat”), prior to a preliminary examination conducted by the President of the Court and in accordance with Articles 34 and 35(1) of the Rules of Procedure, notified, via facsimile, said application to the State7 and the representative. On June 6, 2008 the State appointed Mr. Victor Oscar Shiyin Garcia Toma as ad hoc Judge. 7. On December 5, 2008 the President of the Court ordered, by means of an Order, the submission of affidavits, a testimony, a statement for informative purposes and an expert assessment proposed by the representatives and the Commission. Furthermore, the Court admitted four affidavits submitted by the representatives on November 13, 2008, notwithstanding its early presentation in the proceeding. The parties had the opportunity to present observations to all the statements that were required and admitted. At the same time, the President convened the Commission, the representatives and the State to a public hearing to listen to the statements of two witnesses offered by the representatives, as well as the final oral arguments on the preliminary objection and merits, reparations and costs.8 8. On January 5, 2009 the representatives filed the affidavit rendered by Mrs. Dicha Laura Arias Laureano de Pozo and on January 6, 2009, the Commission filed the statement for informative purposes and the expert report rendered before a notary public by Mr. Javier Cabanillas Reyes and Flavia Marco Navarro, respectively. On January 16, 2009 the State presented observations to the testimony of Dicha Laura Arias Laureano de Pozo, as well as to the statement for 7 When the application was served on the State, it was informed on the right to appoint a judge ad hoc in order to participate in the consideration of the case. 8 Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of December 5, 2008.