7. Answering brief. On November 24 and 25, 2012, Colombia submitted to the Court its brief with preliminary objections, answering the Commission’s submission of the case, and with observations on the motions and arguments brief (hereinafter “answering brief”). Based on the principle of good faith that should guide the actions of the parties to the proceedings before this Court, the Court will consider that the first answering brief presented by the State is the definitive version. 4 In that brief, the State filed six preliminary objections, and contested the description of the facts provided by the representatives and the Commission, as well as all the alleged violations. As of August and September 2013, the agents appointed by the State for this case were Julio Andrés Sampedro Arrubla, Agent, and Juan David Riveros Barragán, Deputy Agent. 5 8. Observations on the preliminary objections. On March 17, 2013, the representatives and the Inter-American Commission presented their observations on the preliminary objections filed by the State. 9. Supervening facts. The representatives presented information and documentation on alleged supervening facts with their brief with preliminary observations of March 17, 2013 (supra para. 8), and with their final list of deponents submitted on June 24, 2013, The State and the Commission were able to present any observations they deemed pertinent on these facts in their oral arguments during the hearing and in their final written arguments. 6 10. Request for a special hearing on preliminary objections. Following a request by the State, the Court issued an Order on May 30, 2013, deciding that a special public hearing would be held on the preliminary objections filed by the State during the same session of the Court as the hearing on eventual merits, reparations and costs. 7 11. Summons to public hearings. On October 16, 2013, the President of the Court issued an Order, 8 in which he convened the State, the representatives and the Inter-American Commission to two public hearings: one on the preliminary objections (hereinafter “public hearing on the preliminary objections”) and the other on eventual merits, reparations and costs (hereinafter “public hearing on the merits”), to hear the final oral arguments of the parties, and the final oral observations of the Commission on these matters. In addition, in 4 The State submitted its answering brief on the day the time limit for its presentation expired (November 24, 2012). The following day, it presented an answering brief with some modifications, indicating that, in the version transmitted previously “there was an editing problem and some paragraphs were in the wrong order” and therefore asked that this new version be considered the definitive document. On December 4, 2012, the President of the Court, in a note of the Secretariat, advised the State that “although it [would] be considered that the answering brief was presented on November 24, 2012, the version of the said brief that was received on November 25, 2012, would be considered the final version […], in the understanding that any changes related exclusively to editing and did not affect the content of the said brief.” However, following an observation by the Commission, the Court verified that several paragraphs of the version of the answering brief forwarded on November 24 referred to the facts of the Santo Domingo Massacre and were replaced by the facts relating to this case in the version received on November 25. The Court considers that this substitution does not constitute a simple “editing problem” but rather affects the content of the answering brief. 5 Initially, on May 24, 2012, the State appointed Luz Marina Gil García and Jorge Enrique Ibáñez Najar as Agents. Subsequently, on November 21, 2012, Colombia substituted these agents, appointing Rafael Nieto Loaiza as Agent. He, in turn, was substituted by Julio Andrés Sampedro Arrubla and Juan David Riveros Barragán, who were appointed Agents on August 26 and September 26, 2013, respectively. 6 In notes of the Secretariat of the Court of March 19 and June 27, 2013, on the instructions of the President of the Court, the State and the Commission, respectively, were advised that they could submit any observations they deemed pertinent on the alleged supervening facts in their oral arguments during the hearing or in their final written arguments. 7 Cf. Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. v. Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of May 30, 2013. Available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/rv_30_05_13.pdf 8 Cf. Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. v. Colombia. Order of the President of the Court of October 16, 2013. Available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/rodriguez_16_10_13.pdf 7