5 of Sessions of the Court, at the seat of the Tribunal.10 10. On February 25 and 26, 2010, the Secretariat of the Court, following the instructions of the President, and in conformity with Article 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, required the Inter-American Commission, the representatives, and the State to offer certain information or documentation as evidence in order to better resolve the case. 11. On March 3, 2010, the Commission and the State issued their final written arguments about the preliminary objections and the eventual merits, reparations, and costs. The State attached an annex to their brief of final arguments. On March 4, 2010, the representatives submitted the final arguments and on March 17, 2010, presented the annexes submitted in said brief. On April 7, 2010, the Commission informed that it did not have observations to make on the annexes of the final arguments presented. On April 13 and 16, 2010, the representatives and the State presented, respectively, their observations to the annexes and the final written arguments. 12. On the 9th, 10th, and 15th of March on 2010, the Commission, the State and the representatives, submitted the evidence required to better resolve the issues of February 25, 2010. Likewise, on April 13 and 16, 2010, the State and the representatives, respectively, issued the evidence required in order to better resolve the issues of March 26, 2010. On May 3, 2010, the representatives and the State presented their observations on the information submitted by the parties as evidence. III PARTIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE STATE’S INTERNATIONAL LIABILITY 13. In the response to the application, the State made a partial acknowledgement of its international liability and pointed out that “by attending to policies […] regarding human rights, [it communicated] its partial acknowledgement of the facts denounced” by the Commission in regards to the violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 4, 5, 7, 17, 19, and 23 of the Convention, in relation with Article 1(1) of the same and Articles I and II of the ICFDP. The State added that it “did not acknowledge the facts of the alleged violation of Articles 3, 8, and 25 of the Convention, in connection with Article 1(1) [of this treaty].” In regards to the arguments of the representatives concerning the alleged violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Convention, the State filed a preliminary objection alleging the failure to exhaust domestic remedies. 14. During the public hearing held in the present case, the State reiterated its acknowledgement of international liability and requested the Court to declare that the controversy has ceased regarding the arguments of law made on Articles 4, 5, 7, 17, 19, and 23 of the Convention. Notwithstanding, the State indicated that it “only accept[ed] the facts related with the violation of the rights which are the object of the acknowledgement […], not the facts that in the response to the application […] it described as not accepted.” 10 At this hearing, the follwoing appeared: a) for the Inter-American Commission: Santiago Canton, Executive Secretary and Lilly Ching Soto, Karla Quintana Osuna and Daniel Rodríguez, advisers; b) for the representatives: Astrid Odete Escobedo Barrondo, Carlos Maria Pelayo Möller, Bernard Duhaime and Alejandro Sanchez Garrido, and c) for the State: Dora Ruth of the Valley Cóbar, President of COPREDEH; Maria Elena of Jesus Rodríguez Lopez, Alternative Agent; Héctor Manfredo Maldonado Méndez, Justice of the Supreme Court of Justice and Enma Estela Hernández Tuy, Adviser. Likewise, they testified as alleged victims: Pedro and Encarnación, of surnames Chitay Rodríguez and the experts: Rosalina Tuyuc; Edgar Armando Gutiérrez Girón and César Augusto Dávila Gómez.