II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 3. The Inter-American Commission’s submission of the case was notified to the State and to the representatives of the presumed victims (hereinafter “the representatives”) on January 31 and February 3, 2011. On April 1, 2011, Susana Terenzi and Margarita Nicoliche forwarded their brief with pleadings, motions and evidence (hereinafter “the pleadings and motions brief”), pursuant to Articles 25 and 40 of the Rules of Procedure. The representatives agreed, in general, with the violations alleged by the Inter-American Commission and also asked the Court to order different measures of reparation. 4. On July 11, 2011, the State presented its answer to the briefs submitting the case and with pleadings and motions (hereinafter “answering brief” or “answer”). Argentina emphasized its “willingness, political will, and the specific actions taken proactively in order to resolve the situation described.” The State indicated that it had avoided confrontation by all available means, and had always given priority to dialogue, proposing as a work strategy the possibility of re-establishing the relationship between Mr. Fornerón and his biological daughter, as this was the only effective option in this case. In addition, it recalled the diverse measures taken by different authorities, including those taken by a Minister of Justice and Human Rights of the Nation in order to reach a friendly settlement. Furthermore, the State referred, among other matters, to the definition of the procedural purpose of the case, to the intervention of provincial authorities in various steps taken, and to some of the measures of reparation requested by the representative. The State appointed Eduardo Acevedo Díaz as Agent, and Juan José Arcuri, Alberto Javier Salgado, and Andrea Gualde as Deputy Agents. 5. Following the presentation of the main briefs (supra paras. 1 to 4), as well as other briefs forwarded by the parties, in an Order of September 13, 2011, the President of the Court ordered that the statements of five witnesses3 and the opinion of one expert witness, proposed by the representatives, be received by sworn statements made before notary public (hereinafter also “affidavit”), regarding which the State was given the opportunity to formulate questions and observations. In addition, he convened the Inter-American Commission, the representatives and the State to a public hearing to receive the statement of Mr. Fornerón, proposed by the representatives, and the expert opinions of Emilio García Méndez, proposed by the Inter-American Commission, and Graciela Marisa Guilis and Carlos Ariana, proposed by the State, as well as the final oral arguments of the representatives and the State, and the final oral observations of the Commission on the merits, reparations, and costs.4 3 Finally, the representatives only forwarded three of the five statements offered. 4 Cf. Case of Fornerón and daughter v. Argentina. Invitation to a Public Hearing. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 13, 2011; available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/ asuntos/forneron.pdf. Following the said convocation, the State advised that for duly justified reasons of force majeure, expert witness Arianna was unable to take part in the public hearing. The Court authorized the said expert witness to provide his opinion by affidavit, granting the representatives the opportunity to formulate questions and observations on it. However, the Court did not admit the representatives’ request for reconsideration in relation to the omission of an expert witness from their final list of deponents. Cf. Case of Fornerón and daughter v. Argentina. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October 9, 2011 (merits file, tome II, folios 1180 and 1184). 4