19. The brief of October 26, 2011, in which the State presented its observations on the comments of the Commission and the representatives concerning the said invitation. 20. The brief of October 27, 2011, in which the representatives forwarded their observations on the State’s remarks concerning the said invitation. 21. The note of November 8, 2011, in which the Secretariat advised that “the President of the Court had been informed” of the said briefs and that the plenum of the Court would be informed of them during its regular session. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. The offer and admission of evidence are aspects that are regulated, inter alia, by Articles 35(1), 40(2), 41(1), 46, 50 and 57 to 60 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. a) Request to appoint an expert 2. The State asked the Court to appoint an international expert “to evaluate and propose a technical and methodological solution to the matter of the pentolite on the territory of the Sarayaku Indigenous People” (supra having seen paragraphs 5 and 10). 3. In this regard, the representatives stated that “there was no justification or need for the Court to appoint an expert at this stage of the proceedings, because, the extensive information and evidence in the case file and in the file on the provisional measures procedure, as well as the arguments that the parties have been able to submit throughout the proceedings, are […] sufficient to allow the Court to take a decision in this regard. In addition, they argued that the State’s requests were intended to re-open the procedural stage of the presentation of evidence and arguments, which had concluded and the re-opening of which was not justified by supervening facts or evidence. Lastly, they added that these requests “could be measures that the State might consider during compliance with the reparations ordered by the Court.” 4. In this regard, the Commission indicated that the deposit or storage of dangerous materials on indigenous lands is one of the situations in which prior, free and informed consent is required, so that the withdrawal of the explosives must be carried out after a consultation has been carried out to obtain the consent of the Sarayaku People. In addition, it considered that, besides the technical information provided to the Court concerning the removal of the explosives, the State’s specific request “should take into account the opinion of the People,” and, if they agree, “it would also be important to consult them and provide them with information on the specific measures that will be taken.” 5. In its observations, the State reiterated its request that the Court appoint an expert to determine the appropriate mechanism to neutralize or to remove any explosive materials that might be in the area. It also indicated that this request “could not in any way constitute supervening evidence, because the objective of the expert appraisal would not be to submit new legal and factual arguments, but rather to establish an effective mechanism to comply with this international obligation in a way that satisfied both the Court and also the representatives and alleged victims.” It also mentioned that “the appointment of the expert would help the State to implement more satisfactorily the obligations that could eventually arise for the State from the reparations that the Court orders in a judgment, as well as those that already exist owing to the provisional measures.” 3