PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 6. Notification to the State and to the representative. – The submission of the case was notified to the State3 and to the representative4 of the alleged victim (hereinafter referred to as "representative"), through communications dated December 11, 2020. 7. Brief with pleadings, motions, and evidence. – The representative filed the brief with pleadings, motions, and evidence (hereinafter "pleadings and motions briefs") on February 11, 2021. In that document, it agreed with the content of the Merits Report and, additionally, requested that the State be held responsible internationally for the violation of Article 26 of the American Convention. Additionally, they requested various reparative measures. 8. Answering brief and preliminary objection. – The State filed its response to the Commission's submission and Merits Report and the brief with pleadings and motions (hereinafter "answering brief") on May 2, 2021. In said brief, Ecuador raised a preliminary objection. It requested that the Court declare that it is not internationally responsible for the alleged violations and that it is not appropriate to order the requested reparations. 9. Observations on the preliminary objections. – By a letter of June 21, 2021, the Commission submitted its observations on the preliminary objection raised by the State. The representative submitted the respective brief extemporaneously, so it was not admitted. 10. Public hearing. – Through a Resolution dated February 11, 2022, the Presidency of the Court convened the parties and the Commission to a public hearing on the preliminary objection, as well as potential merits, reparations, and costs.5 The public hearing was held on March 31, 2022, virtually, during the 147th regular session of the Court.6 11. Useful information and evidence. – On April 1 and June 10, 2022, the President of the Court requested that State and the representative, based on Article 58(b) of the Rules of Procedure and as requested by the judges during the course of the public hearing, send certain documents and evidence.7 The State and the representative responded to these requests by 3 By communication dated January 11t, 2021, the State designated María Fernanda Álvarez Alcívar as principal agent, and Carlos Alfonso Espín Arias and Jorge Palacios Salcedo as alternate agents. 4 César Duque, a lawyer from the Comisión Ecuménica de Derechos Humanos (Ecumenical Commission on Human Rights) -CEDHU-, is representing the alleged victim. 5 Cf. Case of Mina Cuero v. Ecuador. Summons to the hearing. Order from the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 11, 2022. Available at: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/mina_cuero_11_02_22.pdf. 6 The following parties appeared at the hearing: (a) for the Commission: Edgar Stuardo Ralón Orellana, Commissioner; Marisol Blanchard, then Deputy Executive Secretary, and Erick Acuña Pereda, Council; (b) on behalf of the alleged victim: César Duque, and (c) by the Ecuadorian State: María Fernanda Álvarez Alcívar, National Director of Human Rights; Carlos Alfonso Espín Arias, National Deputy Director of Human Rights, and Jorge Palacios Salcedo, Human Rights Litigation Attorney. 7 For this purpose, on April 1, 2022, the State and the representatives were requested to provide the following: (a) the text of the Discipline Regulation of the National Police effective at the time of the events. (b) the text of the Law on Personnel of the National Police effective at the time of the events; (c) if applicable, the text of the regulations that would currently be in force in place of the regulations indicated in the preceding paragraphs; (d) The identification of disciplinary procedures and/or criminal proceedings that, according to the National Police Disciplinary Court's Resolution of October 25, 2000, were registered in Mr. Mina Cuero's "[p]rofessional [l]ife [c]ard," and, if available, the documents that demonstrate how those previous disciplinary procedures and/or criminal proceedings were resolved. (e) The identification of disciplinary procedures and/or criminal proceedings that the National Police Disciplinary Court considered as "aggravating circumstances" in the Resolution of October 25, 2000, and, if available, the documents that demonstrate how those previous disciplinary procedures and/or criminal proceedings were resolved. On June 10, 2022, they were required to do the following: (a) identify the facts that led to the Resolution of the Disciplinary Tribunal of September 13, 1996, that imposed the sanction of dismissal on Mr. Mina Cuero and, if applicable, provide documents to verify this; (b) identify the facts that led to the decision of the Disciplinary Tribunal