application and its observations on the pleadings and motions brief would start on its reception of that communication and its respective attachments. The State was again provided with a copy of the application and the representatives’ brief with the respective attachments. 8. On May 20, 2011, the Secretariat communicated to the parties that, given the State’s failure to respond, and in accordance to Articles 15 and 42 of the Rules of Procedure, the Court had decided that it was not necessary to hold a public hearing in this case. In addition, it asked the parties to present the final list of witnesses and expert witnesses, which the Commission and the representatives forwarded on May 27, 2011. 9. On June 1, 2011, the Court received an amicus curiae brief signed by Ariel Dulitzky, on behalf of the Human Rights Clinic of the School of Law School of the University of Texas at Austin, United States of America. 10. In an order of July 20, 2011, the President required the submission of affidavits by five expert witnesses, two proposed by the Commission and three by the representatives. In addition, the President informed the parties of the time frame for the presentation of their final written arguments on merits and reparations. 11. On September 1 and 3, 2011, the Inter-American Commission and the representatives of the alleged victim, respectively, forwarded their final written arguments. The State did not submit a brief. III PROVISIONAL MEASURES 12. On March 13, 2003, the Commission asked the Court to order the State to adopt provisional measures to protect the life and personal integrity of Lysias Fleury. On March 18, 2003, the President of the Court ordered the State to adopt, without delay, the urgent measures necessary to protect the life and personal integrity of the petitioner.5 On June 7, 2003, the Court ratified the order of the President.6 On December 2, 2003, due to the failure of the State to present any report, the Court issued an order declaring that the State had failed to comply with the orders and with its obligation to provide the corresponding report; it also reiterated the measures ordered. On November 25, 2008, despite considering “that the State ha[d] failed to comply with its obligation to inform the Court about the implementation of the measures ordered, the Court considered that, since the beneficiary of the measures has left the State that was supposed to protect him, and since no information has been received to indicate that he w[ould] return soon or that he wishe[d] to do so, the provisional measures in his favor ha[d] become ineffective.” IV COMPETENCE 5 Cf. Matter of Lysias Fleury. Provisional measures with regard to Haiti. Order of the President of the Court of March 18, 2003. 6 Cf. Matter of Lysias Fleury. Provisional measures with regard to Haiti. Order of the Inter-American Court of June 7, 2003. 6