6. The brief submitted on November 23, 2012 by Judge Vio Grossi addressed to the President of the Court, in which he referred to the State’s comments reject [ing]” his excuse in this case (supra Having Seen 4). 7. The Order of the Court of November 29, 2012, confirming that Judge Vio Grossi’s excuse had been submitted and accepted by the President of the Court, in consultation with the other judges, in accordance with the statutory norms and Rules and that it considered that the State’s arguments were inadmissible with respect to its “rejection” of said excuse (supra Having Seen 3, 4 and 6). 8. The brief presented by the State on November 30, 2012, in which it submitted the attachments to its answer brief, together with the “curriculum vitae” and contact information of Mr. Octavio José Sisco Ricciardi, proposed as an expert witness in the answer brief (supra Having Seen 4). 9. The briefs of March 5 and 6, 2013, in which the Commission and the representatives, respectively, presented their observations to the preliminary objection filed by the State of Venezuela (supra Having Seen 4 and 5). 10. The notes of March 19, 2013, in which the Secretariat reported that the Court had scheduled the public hearing in this case to take place during its 99th Regular Period of Sessions to be held from May 13-31, 2013 and, according to Article 46(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, requested that the parties and the Inter-American Commission submit their respective definitive lists of deponents (hereinafter “definitive lists”) no later than April 2, 2013, and, for reasons of procedural economy and in application of said Article, that they indicate those who could render their statements by affidavit and those who should be summoned to testify at a public hearing in order of priority. 11. The communication of March 26, 2013, in which the representatives requested an extension of the deadline for submitting the definitive list of deponents. 12. The notes of March 27, 2013, in which the Secretariat informed the parties and the Commission that the extension requested by the representatives (supra Having Seen 11) was granted until April 8, 2013, and that said extension was also granted ex officio to the State and the Commission. Likewise, it explained that the hearing in this case could not be held during the period of sessions of May 2013 and that they would be notified of the new date in due course, as soon at it had been rescheduled. 13. The brief of April 2, 2013, in which the State submitted its definitive list of deponents and indicated that it considered that all the deponents proposed should be summoned to testify at a public hearing and, if this was not possible, that the statements of two witnesses could be rendered by affidavit. The State also expressed its “opposition”, inter alia, to the extension granted to the representatives to present their definitive list and to “the Court’s decision to suspend the Public hearing in the 99th Period of sessions,” which causes difficulties for the State and violates the right to procedural equality. 14. The notes of April 4, 2013, in which the Secretariat indicated that the Court or its President would consider the possibility of granting an additional procedural opportunity for the parties and the Commission to confirm the information contained in the definitive lists. 15. The briefs of April 8, 2013, in which the representatives and the Commission submitted their definitive lists of deponents. The representatives also reiterated the 2