Appellate Chamber. 163 One year later, in March 2003, the Appellate Chamber declared that the appeal had been granted erroneously. 164 According to the information provided to the Court, the objection of prescription filed by the presumed victims has still not been decided. 99. In September 2003, six years after the civil action commenced, the proceeding was opened to evidence, initially for 20 days. Following this decision, the evidence offered by the parties to the complaint, and also the expansion of the complaint and the answer were admitted. 165 Furthermore, a hearing was convened in order to “know the positions of the respondents,” as well as other hearings to receive the testimony of the witnesses. 166 In addition, the other courts that had been involved in the case were asked to forward the evidence provided by the parties at the opportune moment. 167 This evidence included some cassettes forwarded by the presumed victims, so that in October and November 2006, the judge asked the Departmental Chamber if “it had on record the names of experts whose expertise consisted in the transcription of [cassettes].” In November 2007, the presumed victims asked that another request be sent to the Departmental Chamber about the experts on record, because no response had been received. 168 100. In 2009, an effort was made at conciliation between the plaintiff and the respondents, but the attempts were unsuccessful. Specifically, on August 11, 2009, the parties were convened to a hearing that was held on September 23, where it was decided that “in view of the efforts to achieve a conciliation, the parties ask[ed] that the proceeding be suspended until September 30, 2009, and that another hearing be established […] on th[at day].” On September 30, the parties advised that they had not reached an agreement, so that this procedure was concluded. 169 101. From 2009 to 2012 the proceeding continued at the evidence stage. During this time, there was some activity with regard to the transcription of the cassettes requested by the presumed victims (supra para. 99), which remained pending. In particular, on September 11, 2009, the judge declared “that the said evidence that was pending production had been waived.” The presumed victims recalled that they had not desisted from this transcription, but rather, to the contrary, “had been requesting it and reiterating this for the last 11 years.” Nevertheless, on October 30, 2009, the judge decided “to declare the respondent negligent in 163 Cf. Decision of March 4, 2002 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2151); brief of March 19, 2002 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folios 2154 to 2159), and decision of March 19, 2002 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2160). 164 Cf. Decision of March 20, 2003 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folios 2167 and 2168). 165 Cf. Decision of September 18, 2003 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2183 and 2196), and decision of September 14, 2004 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2213). 166 Cf. Decision of July 27, 2004 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2196); decision of October 6, 2004 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2219); decision of October 6, 2004 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2226); decision of August 5, 2005 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2258), and record of the hearing of September 26, 2005 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folios 2421 and 2422). 167 Cf. note of September 14, 2004 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2215); decision of June 19, 2008 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2623), and decision of August 31, 2009 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folios 2656 and 2657). 168 Cf. Decision of October 12, 2006 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2561); decision of November 9, 2006 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2581), and brief of November 30, 2007 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2614). 169 Cf. Decision of August 11, 2009 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2655); record of the hearing of September 23, 2009 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2663), and record of the hearing of September 30, 2009 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2667). 40