between the presentation of the initial petition before the Commission and the submission of the case before the Court. 4. Requests from the Inter-American Commission. The Commission asked the Court to declare the State internationally responsible for the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees, the principle of legality, political rights and judicial protection, enshrined in Articles 8(1), 8(2) b), 8(2) c), 9, 23(1) c) and 25(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to the obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument, to the detriment of the presumed victim. II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 5. Notification to the State and the presumed victim. The submission of the case was notified to the State and the presumed victim on February 19, 2020 6. Brief of pleadings, motions, and evidence. On April 22, 2020, the presumed victim presented her brief of pleadings, motions and evidence (hereinafter “brief of pleadings and motions”), pursuant to Articles 25 and 40 of the Rules of the Court. Mrs. Moya Solís requested that the State be declared internationally responsible for the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees, the principle of legality and judicial protection, established in Articles 8(1), 8(2) b), 8(2) c), 9 and 25(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights. She also requested reparation measures. 7. Answering brief. On September 10, 2020, the State 2 presented its brief answering the submission of the case and the brief of pleadings and motions (hereinafter "answer" or "answering brief"), in which it filed three preliminary objections and objected to the alleged violations and the requests for reparation measures presented by the Commission and the presumed victim. 8. Observations on the preliminary objections. The presumed victim presented observations on the preliminary objections raised by the State on November 7, 2020. The Inter-American Commission submitted its observations on November 9, 2020. 9. Final written proceeding. By Order of February 1, 20213, the President of the Court, in response to the situation caused by the pandemic due to the spread of Covid-19 and in accordance with the power granted by Article 50(1) of the Regulations, resolved not to convene a public hearing for this case and to request that a testimonial statement and two expert opinions be sent by affidavit. 10. Additional information and evidence. On March 18 and April 22, 2021, on the instructions of the President of the Court, the State was requested to send additional information.4 The State submitted this documentation on March 24, April 12, and May 4, 2021. The Commission did not submit observations on the documentation provided by the State. The presumed victim's observations and final written arguments were forwarded on April 19, and May 13, 2021 (infra para. 36). 2 The State of Peru appointed Carlos Miguel Reaño Balarezo, Supranational Specialized Public Prosecutor as its lead representative in this case and, as alternate representatives, the Supranational Specialized Deputy Public Prosecutor Carlos Llaja Villena and the lawyer Silvana Lucía Gómez Salazar. On December 3, 2020, the State reported the end of the appointment of attorney Gómez Salazar as alternate representative. 3 Cf. Case of Moya Solís v. Peru. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of human Rights of February 1, 2021. Available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/Moya_Solís_1_02_2021.pdf. 4 On March 18, 2021, information was requested from the State regarding the current name of the position "grade V2 judicial clerk," the salaries earned by those who held that position, and the policies for promotion or promotion in the position. On April 22, 2021, information was requested from the State on the positions held by Mrs. Moya Solís in the judiciary after September 1982. 4