6. The President, in consultation with the members of the Court, considers that, during the litigation of this case, the parties have provided sufficient information in this regard, including expert appraisals, so that, at the actual procedural stage, it is not essential to order the said expert appraisal in order to decide on the merits. b) Invitation to visit Ecuador 7. During the public hearing and on other occasions, the State asked, through the President of the Republic, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and its agents for this case that the Court make a “field visit to the Río Bobonaza Communities so that it can observe in situ the legal and socio-environmental complexity of the case that is being litigated” (supra having seen paragraphs 5, 10, 12 and 13). 8. The representatives asked the Court to reject the invitation extended by the President of the Republic of Ecuador, arguing an “evident absence of justification for the evidence that it is sought to provide in a time-barred manner.” They also indicated that, with the information that is already in the case file, “the Court has all the necessary and sufficient elements to be able to decide on merits, reparations and costs in this case.” In this regard, they asked the Court “to reject any procedure that attempts to delay even further the deciding of this case.” In their brief of October 27, 2011, they emphasized the “unnecessary and unjustified [nature] of the State’s requests,” because their purpose is to re-open the procedural stage of the presentation of evidence and arguments, which has concluded and the re-opening of which is not justified by supervening facts or evidence. Lastly, they added that the State’s requests “could be measures that the State might consider during compliance with the reparations ordered by the Court.” 9. The Inter-American Commission indicated that it recognized that the Court is empowered to receive relevant information and evidence in the cases submitted to its consideration. Nevertheless, it observed that “it would appear that the invitation extended by the State in this case exceeds the scope of the case, because it tries to include the different communities of the Bobonaza territory.” The Commission cited a precedent of a probative measure conducted by this Court, and another precedent of the International Court of Justice. In addition, it indicated that “if the Court should decide to accept the State’s invitation, […] the visit should be limited to the Sarayaku territory” and should be carried out in keeping with international practice; it therefore asked “to be present during the visit and have the opportunity to give an opinion on the evidence collected.” 10. The State indicated that it rejected the representatives’ argument that this was timebarred or supervening evidence or an effort to influence the ruling that the Court must make, and considered that it was for the Court to take the corresponding decision, taking into account that “the Commission [had] indicated in its brief with observations that there was no legal obstacle to the visit, and that there was already a precedent in the practice of the Court. Moreover, the [Commission] has even indicated its wish to participate in the visit through its delegates, if it takes place.” The State repeated “its request for a technical visit by the InterAmerican Court in the context of this case, since it is legally feasible, […] with the presence of a delegation from the Inter-American Commission, and [coordinating] this visit with the representatives in this case, in order to ensure transparency in all the procedures, revealing the good faith of the State, demonstrated by the high level of commitment of its authorities.” 11. Regarding the request for a visit presented by the State, the Court recalls that, as established in Article 58 of its Rules of Procedure, at any stage of the proceedings the Court is empowered take the measures it deems pertinent to help it decide the case pendente lite. Its powers include the possibility of ordering, inter alia, the execution of any probative or 4