4 6. On the 4th and 9th of December, 2009, the Commission and the representatives, respectively, presented their allegations on the acknowledgments and the preliminary objections made by the State, in conformity with Article 38(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court. II PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COURT 7. The application was notified to the State3 and to the representatives on May 15, 2009. During the process before this Tribunal, as well as for the presentation of the principal briefs referred by the parties (supra para. 1,4, and 5), the Presidency of the Court (hereinafter “the Presidency”) ordered, through the Order of December 21, 2009,4 the reception of statements given before a public notary (affidavit) by the alleged victim, five testimonies and three expert witness reports,5 which were timely offered by the parties.6 Through the same Order, the Court called the parties to a public hearing in order to hear the statements of the three alleged victims7 and of the three proposed expert witnesses, according to the case, by the Commission, the representatives, and the State, as well as the final oral arguments regarding the preliminary objections and the eventual merits of the case, reparations, and costs. Finally, the Presidency fixed a time period of until March 3, 2010, in order for the parties to present their respective briefs of final arguments. 8. On December 20, 2009, the representatives filed objections to the testimony of Ms. María Eugenia Solís García as Judge ad hoc in the present case, arguing that a position as Executive Director of the Commission for the Monitoring and Support of the Strengthening of Justice [Commission Seguimiento y Apoyo al Fortalecimiento de la Justicia], would be incompatible with the role of ad hoc Judge. On January 25, 2010,8 the Court decided to reject the objection filed.9 9. The public hearing was held on February 2, 2010, during the LXXXVI Regular Period 3 When the petition was notified to the State, it was Reportd of its right to designate an ad hoc Judge for the consideration of this case. On June 12, 2009, the State appointed Mrs. María Eugenia Solís García. 4 Cf. Case Chitay Nech et. al. V. Guatemala. Order of la Presidenta of la Corte of 21 of December of 2009. 5 On January 15, 2010 the representatives Reportd that “For circumstances of major force related to questions of Elath […] it will not be possible that Mr. Juan Diego Castrillón Orrego present his expert opinon before the Court, and as such they refused to forward it.” 6 On December 9, 2009 the representatives referred their observations regarding the definitive list of witnesses and experts offered by the Commission and the State, and challenged César Augusto Dávila Gómez's expert opinion proposed by the State. 7 On January 8, 2010 the representatives brought to the Court’s attention that Mr. Estermerio Chitay Rodríguez could not testify in person, to which they requested the Court receive him by means of affidávit. On January 11, 2010, the Secretariat following instructions of the President of the Court, authorized the representatives to send the above-mentioned declaration by means of affidávit. 8 Cf. Case of Chitay Nech and others v. Guatemala. Order of the Court of January 25, 2010, to which Judge Vio Grossi entered a dissenting opinion. 9 To this effect, it indicated that “there it has not been demonstrated that the functions and organic location of the above mentioned office corresponds to that of a high civil servant of the Executive, nor that there exists a hierarchic ordinary subordination of the same, in that they do not present the grounds of incompatibility established in the Rules of Procedure of the Court.” In addition, the Court estimated that “it was not possible to detach the supposed ‘direct interest’ of Ms. Maria Eugenia Solís García in the present case”.