3. The Commission’s requests. The Commission asked this Court to declare the international responsibility of Ecuador, considering “the totality of the facts and human rights violations” noted in its Merits Report, and to order the State to adopt, as measures of reparation, the recommendations included in that report. II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 4. Notification to the State and to the representative. The representative of the presumed victim, as well as the State, were notified of the case on July 3, 2018. 4 5. Brief with motions, pleadings, and evidence. On September 5, 2018, the representative presented his brief with motions, pleadings, and evidence (hereinafter “motions and pleadings brief”), pursuant to Articles 25 and 40 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. He agreed with the Commission’s arguments and also asked the Court to declare the State responsible for violating the rights to personal integrity and judicial protection. He sought a variety of reparation measures and the payment of “fees.” Answering brief. On November 28, 2018, Ecuador presented its brief with preliminary objections, its answer to the submission of the case, and its observations on the motions and pleadings brief (hereinafter “the answering brief”). It lodged two preliminary objections, and it denied the alleged violations and 6. the appropriateness of measures of reparation. 7. Observations on the preliminary objections. On February 20, 2019, the Commission presented observations on the preliminary objections. The representative did the same on the 26th of that month. The representative's observations were delivered late, so they will not be considered. In the same brief, the representative presented observations on the merits of the case and on the evidence offered by Ecuador. As those observations were presented outside of the legally established occasions for that purpose and as they were unsolicited, they will not be considered either. 8. Final written proceedings. After evaluating the primary briefs presented by the Commission and the parties, and in light of the provisions of Articles 15, 45, and 50(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the then-President of the Court 5 (hereinafter “the President”), in consultation with the Plenum of the Court, decided “for reasons of procedural Carranza had passed away.” The State declared at that time that it “was willing to carry out the comprehensive reparation process recommended in Merits Report No. 40/17” and that “the difficulty of ascertaining Mr. Carranza’s whereabouts have[had] made it impossible to do so.” Also at that time, the State indicated that for the reason presented, it was “necessary to seek an extension” from the Commission and that it “would be appropriate, within the framework of the trial within the Inter-American System [...], to request that the petitioner’s representative provide the State with information allowing it to contact Mr. Carranza Alarcón.” 4 On June 15, 2018, the representative reported that he “[would] continue to represent” Mr. Carranza, who had passed away, according to “information from family members.” Moreover, on July 9, 2018, he reported that the compact disc containing documentary appendices to the case notification had arrived damaged. For this reason, on July 13, he was sent that documentation again with a note that the two-month period for presenting his brief with motions, pleadings, and evidence would be counted from the date of receipt of that second set of documents. 5 Poisot. When said resolution was issued, the President of the Court was Judge Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor 4