(6) Luz Ángela Patiño Palacios, Gloria Amparo Rodríguez and Julio Cesar Estrada Cordero; (7) Santiago Medina Villareal and Sophie Simon; (8) the Allard K. Lowestein International Human Rights Clinic of Yale University,15 and (9) the Forest Peoples Programme.16 14. On August 5 and 8, 2011, the State and the representatives, respectively, filed their final written arguments, and on August 8, 2011, the Commission submitted its final written observations. In a note of the Secretariat of August 19, 2011, and on the instructions of the President, a time frame was established for the presentation of any observations deemed pertinent on the attachments submitted by the representatives and the State. 15. In a note of the Secretariat of August 19, 2011, on the instructions of the President and in accordance with article 5 of the Court’s Rules for the Operation of the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund, the State was advised of the disbursements made from the Fund in this case, and granted until September 2, 2011, at the latest, to submit any observations it deemed relevant. The State did not forward any observations. 16. On September 1, 2011, the representatives and the State submitted their observations on the attachments to the final arguments of the other party. On September 2, 2011 the InterAmerican Commission indicated, inter alia, that it had no observations on the attachments submitted by the representatives and, on those forwarded by the State, it observed that “several of these are time-barred,” and therefore requested that they be rejected without specifying the documents to which it was referring. 17. In a note of the Secretariat of September 6, 2011, the representatives were informed, on the instructions of the President, that their observations and arguments that were not specifically related to the admissibility or content of the documents provided by the State with its final written arguments were inadmissible and would not be considered by the Court. In the same note, the State was informed, on the instructions of the President, that its brief with observations was inadmissible because it had presented arguments that did not specifically refer to the attachments submitted by the representatives.17 C. Visit to the Sarayaku People 18. In its final arguments brief of August 5, 2011, the State reiterated a request, made during the public hearing, for the Court “[to] make a field visit to the Bobonaza River Communities [so that] it could observe on site the complex legal and socio-environmental issues of the instant case.” Furthermore, during the hearing, one of the presumed victims, Ena Santi, asked the Court to session in Sarayaku.18 On September 28, 2011, the Constitutional President of Ecuador, Rafael Salvador; Juan Javier Zeballos Gutiérrez, Executive Director of the National Press Association of Bolivia; Álvaro Herrero, Executive Director of the Civil Rights Association of Argentina; Edison Lanza Robatto, Executive Director of the Centro de Archivo y Acceso a la Información Pública of Uruguay; Elizabeth Ungar Bleier, Executive Director of Transparency Colombia; Katya Salazar, Executive Director of the United States Due Process of Law Foundation; Andrés Morales, Executive Director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation of Colombia; Moises Sánchez Riquelme, Executive Director of the Pro Acceso Foundation of Chile; César Ricaurte, Executive Director of Fundamedios of Ecuador; Miguel Angel Pulido Jiménez, Executive Director of Fundar, Centro de Análisis e Investigación of Mexico; Ezequiel Francisco Santagada, Executive Director of the Instituto de Derecho y Economía Ambiental of Paraguay; Alejandro Delgado Faith, President of the Instituto de Prensa y Libertad de Expresión of Costa Rica; Ricardo Uceda, Executive Director of the Instituto de Prensa y Sociedad of Peru, and Mercedes of Freitas, Executive Director of Transparency, Venezuela. 15 Brief submitted by James J. Silk, Director and Law Professor, and Allyson A. McKinney, on July 21, 2011. 16 Brief submitted by Fergus MacKay on July 22, 2011. 17 The representatives’ attachments were merely intended to support their requests for costs and expenses; they were therefore informed that the admissibility and, if applicable, probative value of these attachments would be determined by the Court in the judgment. 18 “The State says that it has provided projects to benefit the Sarayaku. The State did give some projects […] but did not complete them […]. You are invited to Sarayaku to verify the situation of the projects that the State has given” (Minute 49.05 – 49.25 of the recording, part 3). “Honorable Judges of the Inter-American Court, I am inviting you to come to Sarayaku and verify in situ the work done by the Government; to see if there is a lovely, beautiful road built by the State; if 7