3 4. On March 17, 2009, the State, represented by Hon. Freundel J. Stuart, Q.C., M.P., and Dr. David S. Berry as Agent and Deputy Agent, respectively, submitted its brief containing the answer to the application and observations to the representatives’ brief (hereinafter “answer to the application”), in which it submitted the following three preliminary objections to the Court’s jurisdiction: i) lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies, ii) breach of the fourth instance rule, and iii) that the complaint no longer involved the Commission as a party. The State alleged that some of the legal issues raised in this case are identical to those analyzed by this Court in the Boyce et al. case, and requested that the Court note that the State had already carried out certain measures to comply with the Court’s Judgment in that case. At the same time, the State requested that the Court deny all the claims and requests submitted by the representatives and the Commission and affirm that the laws of Barbados comply with the American Convention. 5. Pursuant to Article 38(4) of the Rules of Procedure, on April 29, 2009, the representatives and the Commission submitted their respective written briefs on the preliminary objections presented by the State, requesting that they be dismissed. II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 6. On November 18, 2008, the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”), following the President of the Court’s preliminary examination, and pursuant to Articles 35 and 36(1) of the Rules of Procedure, served notice of the application to the State3 and the representatives. 7. On December 17, 2008, the State requested an extension of time for the appointment of an ad hoc Judge in the case. Accordingly, pursuant to instructions of the Court’s President, the State was granted an extension until January 30, 2009. On that date, the State appointed the Hon. Justice John Connell as ad hoc Judge. 8. On May 18, 2009, the President of the Court ordered the submission of the sworn declarations (affidavits) of the alleged victim and six expert witnesses proposed by the Commission, the representatives, and the State, to which the parties were given the opportunity to submit their respective observations. Furthermore, due to the particular circumstances of the case, the President convened the Inter-American Commission, the representatives, and the State to a public hearing in order to hear the final arguments of the parties regarding the preliminary objections and possible merits, reparations, and costs.4 9. On June 10, 2009, the Inter-American Commission and the representatives submitted the sworn declaration (affidavit) of Mr. DaCosta Cadogan, and the representatives submitted the sworn statements (affidavits) of Prof. Nigel Eastman, Mr. Edward Fitzgerald Q.C., and Dr. Timothy Green. On June 11, 2009, the State submitted the sworn declarations (affidavits) of Dr. Brian MacLachlan, Mr. Anthony V. Grant, and Mr. Anthony Blackman. On June 22, 2009, the State submitted its observations to the affidavit of Mr. DaCosta Cadogan, and on June 23, 2009, the Inter-American Commission and the representatives indicated they had no observations to the affidavits submitted by the other 3 When notified of the application, the State was also informed that it could appoint an ad hoc Judge to participate in the present case. 4 Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of May 18, 2009.