9. Call to a hearing. On November 17, 2016, the President of the Court issued an order 8 in which he summoned the parties and the Inter-American Commission to a special public hearing on the preliminary objections filed in the instant case. 9 10. Special public hearing on the preliminary objections. The public hearing took place on February 8, 2017, during the Court’s 117th regular session held in the city of San José, Costa Rica, 10 during which the parties and the Commission, respectively, presented their oral arguments and observations. 11. Information and helpful evidence requested. On February 15 and 22, 2017, the InterAmerican Defenders and the SIPDH, as well as the Commission and the State, submitted their respective briefs in response to the information requested during the public hearing and in the note of the Secretariat dated February 10, 2017. Together with their briefs, the State and the Commission also submitted annexes. Factum Consorcio did not submit the requested information. Likewise, on March 7, 2017, the State, the Inter-American Defenders and Factum Consorcio submitted their observations to the aforementioned annexes forwarded by the State and the Commission. For their part, the Commission and SIPDH did not submit observations to these annexes. 11 12. Amicus curiae. The Court received a total of 21 amicus curiae briefs. 12 8 Cf. Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica. Order to the President of the Court of November 17, 2016. Available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/amrhein_17_11_16.pdf 9 In a note dated December 9, 2016, the Secretariat reminded the Commission and the parties “that there would be no opportunities to submit written arguments after the hearing on preliminary objections.” 10 The following appeared at the public hearing: a) for the Inter-American Commission: Commissioner José de Jesús Orozco, and Silvia Serrano Guzmán and Selene Soto, lawyers of the Executive Secretariat; b) for the alleged victims: the common interveners Inter-American Defenders José Arnoldo González Castro, Tomás Poblador Ramírez and Belinda Guevara Casaya; the common interveners Servicios Interamericanos de Profesionales en Derechos Humanos Víctor Manuel Rodríguez Rescia, Yorleny Clark Martínez, Fabián Salvioli and Miguel Ruiz Herrera, and the common interveners of Factum Consorcio, Adrián Martínez Blanco and Néstor Morera Víquez, and c) for the State of Costa Rica: Ambassador and Agent Gioconda Ubeda Rivera, Magistrate and Agent José Manuel Arroyo Gutiérrez, Assistant Legal Director of the Ministry of Foreign Relations and Agent Eugenia Gutiérrez Ruiz, Legal Adviser of the Ministry of Foreign Relations Marianela Álvarez Blanco, court attorney of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice Carlos Jiménez González, Adviser to the General Directorate of Social Adaptation, Ministry of Justice and Peace Mariela Romero Villalobos, Adviser to the Minister of Foreign Relations, María Devandas Calderón, Legal Counsel of Ministry of Foreign Relations Víctor Guzmán Rodríguez, Legal Director of the Ministry of Foreign Relations, Natalia Córdoba Ulate, and Legal Counsel of the Ministry of Foreign Relations, José Carlos Jiménez Alpízar. 11 The Court considers that since these did not constitute new procedural opportunities to submit arguments, any additional argument included in the aforementioned briefs that was not in response to the requests, is time-barred and, therefore, cannot be taken into account. Nevertheless, the Court notes that on February 15, 2017 and in response to the request of this Court, the State pointed out the facts that it considered to be outside the factual framework of the case, the assessment thereof and statistics on the number of cases that would be impacted by a possible decision thereon. Given that this information was only requested during the public hearing and in application of the adversarial principle, the Court admits the observations submitted on March 7, 2017, by the Inter-American Defenders and Factum Consorcio related exclusively to this point. 12 The following amicus curiae briefs were received pursuant to the provisions of Article 44(3) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, and following the instructions of its President, these briefs were transmitted to the parties. The following amicus curiae briefs discussed the alleged violation of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention: i) brief of September 6, 2017 of Marco Tulio Sandoval Meza; ii) brief of August 31, 2017 of Gerardo Aguilar Coto; iii) brief of August 31, 2017 of Víctor Zúñiga Quirós; iv) brief of August 31, 2017 of Juan Villalobos Parajeles; v) brief of September 11, 2017 of Juan Rafael Arrieta Espinoza; vi) brief of February 10, 2017 of Felipe Saavedra Cruz; vii) brief of January 9,2017 of Cristian Alpízar Arcejut; viii) brief of October 2, 2015 of José Tomás Guevara; ix) brief of August 31, 2015 of José Tomás Guevara; x) brief of August 31, 2015 of José Tomás Guevara; xi) brief of January 9, 2017 of José Gilberth Angulo Méndez; xii) brief of May 31, 2016 of José Tomás Guevara; and xiii) primer brief of August 31, 2015 of José Tomás Guevara. In addition: xiv) brief of April 22, 2016 of José Tomás Guevara concerning the alleged failure to guarantee of due process by the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice; xv) the brief of January 14, 2016 of José Tomás Guevara on the alleged violation of the rights of defense, to present evidence in criminal proceedings, the benefit of Article 55 of the Criminal Code, inter alia; xvi) the brief of January 12, 2016 of José Tomás Guevara on the alleged distortion of the writ of amparo by the 9