Chargé d’Affaires of the Embassy of Bolivia in Costa Rica, and Hugo Jemio Mendoza, official of the General Directorate of Human Rights and Environmental Proceedings, as deputy agents. 8. Observations on the preliminary objections. On December 9 and 12, 2012, the representatives and the Commission, respectively, presented their observations on the preliminary objections filed by the State. 9. Public hearing. By an Order of February 19, 2013,7 the President of the Court required that the statements of three of the presumed victims, and three expert witnesses offered by the representatives, the Commission and the State, be received by affidavit. In addition, the parties and the Commission were convened to a public hearing to receive their oral arguments and observations on the preliminary objections and eventual merits and reparations, as well as the statements of two of the presumed victims, one witness proposed by the State, and one expert witness proposed by the Commission. The public hearing was held on March 19 and 20, 2013, during the forty-seventh special session of the Court, held in Medellin, Colombia.8 10. Amici curiae. In addition, the Court received amicus curiae briefs presented by Ezequiel Heffes and Fernando Alberto Goldar, and by the Human Rights Clinic of the School of Law of Santa Clara University, United States of America. Elizabeth Santalla Vargas also forwarded an amicus curiae brief, the admissibility of which was questioned by the State. 9 The Court clarifies that an amicus curiae brief can never be assessed as a probative element per se. Regarding this brief, Ms. Santalla confirmed that she is connected to an organization that participated in the facts of this case; thus, in the terms of Articles 2(3) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, she is not a person entirely unrelated to the case and to the proceedings, so that this brief will not be taken into consideration. 11. Final written arguments and observations. On April 18 and 19, 2013 the State and the representatives forwarded their final written arguments and, on April 19, the Inter-American Commission presented its final written observations. Since the State presented documents attached to its brief, on May 2, 2013, the parties were granted until May 20 to present observations, with the clarification that this did not represent a new procedural opportunity to expand their arguments. The representatives and the Commission presented their observations on May 16 and 20, 2013. 12. Documentation presented by the presumed victims and their representatives after the final written arguments. On May 14, 2013, Rumaldo Pacheco Osco, presumed victim, presented certain documentation that had been obtained from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the State of Chile. Also, in a brief of May 16, 2013, the representatives presented the same documentation and asked that it be admitted, based on Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure. Most of this documentation consists of communications between the Chilean Consulate in La Paz and the Chilean Ministry of Foreign Affairs between February 20 and 24, 2001, and it is relevant to this case because there is a dispute between the parties concerning whether the Bolivian 7 Cf. Case of the Pacheco Tineo family v. Bolivia, Order of the President of the Court of February 19, 2013, available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/pacheco_19_02_13.pdf 8 At this hearing, there appeared: (a) for the Inter-American Commission: Silvia Serrano Guzmán, Adviser; (b) for the representatives: Roberto Tadeu Vaz Curvo and Gustavo Zapata Baez, and (c) for the State: Hugo Montero Lara, Elizabeth Arismendi Chumacero and Miguel Ángel Estrada Aspiazu, Agents, as well as Hugo Jemio Mendoza and Juana Inés Acosta López, Deputy Agents; Aldo Cortes Milán, Renso Vargas Terrazas, Alberto Páez Bastidas, Guehizza Patricia Zeballos Grossberger and Cosset Estenssoro Torricos, Advisers. 9 The State indicated that amici curiae “are characterized by being objective, independent and impartial, collaborating with courts in the examination and deciding of cases submitted to their jurisdiction”; that Ms. Santalla Vargas was legal adviser to the CEB-UNHCR (Bolivian Episcopal Conference-United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) project at the time of the events of this case and that, consequently, the main purpose of this amicus curiae is absent, because, it is not objective and impartial, since she is aware of the facts of the case. The State asked the Court to reject this brief and to consider that its conclusions do not apply to the instant case. 7