position expressed in their brief of April 2 regarding the difficulty of having to present the definitive list, even though no date had been set for the hearing, and mentioned the possibility that the public notaries in Venezuela would refuse to officially certify the statements offered. 4 16. The notes of April 22, 2013, in which the Secretariat acknowledged receipt of the lists, transmitted the respective definitive lists of deponents and indicated that the term for submitting observations to these lists would be established once the date of the hearing had been set. The notes also stated that the State’s objection to the extension granted to the representatives (supra Having Seen 11 to 13) and the arguments made by the parties with respect to setting the date of the hearing, would be brought to the attention of the Court, for the pertinent purposes. 17. The notes of June 4, 2013, in which the Secretariat informed the parties and the Commission that the Court had programmed the public hearing in this case for September 3 and 4, 2013, during its 100th Regular Period of Sessions. The parties were also informed that the President of the Court had decided to grant a procedural opportunity to confirm the information offered in their respective definitive lists (supra Having Seen 13 a 15), for which they were granted a term until June 14, 2013. 18. The brief of the Commission of June 7, 2013 and the briefs of the representatives and of the State of June 14, 2013, in which they confirmed the information offered in their definitive lists of deponents. In addition, the representatives forwarded the curricula vitae of Messrs. Ollarves Irazábal and García Belaúnde and indicated that they were being offered for the “first time on that date.” 19. The notes of the Secretariat of June 18, 2013, in which, following the instructions of the President of the Court and pursuant to Article 46(2) of its Rules of Procedure, the parties were granted a term until June 28, 2013 to submit observations to the definitive lists and to the aforementioned complementary briefs (supra Having Seen 13, 15, 17 and 18). The Secretariat also indicated that the President would not grant a term for observations to the offer of the expert opinions of Messrs. Ollarves Irazábal and García Belaúnde, since the representatives were not requesting a substitution of deponents or referring to some exceptional assumption of admissibility of the evidence (supra Having Seen 18). 20. The brief of June 19, 2013, in which the representatives asked “the President of the Court to reconsider his decision not to request observations on [the offer of] the expert witnesses Ollarves Irazábal and García Belaúnde” (supra Having Seen 19) and, in addition requested that “the Court consider this communication as a request for the substitution of professors Alberto Arteaga Sánchez and Rafael Chavero Gadzik […] with professors Jesús Ollarves Irazábal and Domingo García Belaúnde.” 21. The notes of the Secretariat of June 21, 2013, in which the President granted the State a period until July 1, 2013 to submit its observations to the representatives’ request to substitute two expert witnesses, submitted in their brief of June 19, 2013 (supra Having Seen 20). 22. The brief of June 27, 2013 and its attachments, in which the representatives submitted their observations to the definitive list of the State, and objected to the 4 They indicated that, should this situation arise again, they would submit a timely request to present those statements in a brief signed under oath by the deponents resident in Venezuela”. 3