representatives endorsed the Commission’s application in totum and, in addition to the articles of the Convention cited by the Commission, asked the Court to declare the State responsible for violating the right established in Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment). Lastly, they requested specific measures of reparation. 5. On December 31, 2009, the State filed its brief in answer to the application and with observations on the pleadings and motions brief (hereinafter “answer to the application”). The State disputed the alleged facts and the legal claims set out by the Commission and the representatives. The State appointed José Enrique García as its Agent and Inés Martínez Valinotti as its Deputy Agent.4 II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 6. At the request of the Commission and the representatives, on October 29, 2009, the expert opinions of José Braunstein, Bartemeu Melia i Lliteres, Enrique Castillo and José Aylwin in the case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay5 were added to the case file. Those expert opinions were forwarded to the State the same day so that it could present any observations it deemed pertinent. 7. In an Order of March 8, 2010,6 the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”) ordered that the testimony of the alleged victims, witnesses, and experts offered by the parties be received by affidavit. In addition, the parties were convened to a public hearing to hear testimony proposed by the Commission, the State, and the representatives, as well as their final oral arguments on the merits and possible reparations and costs. Lastly, the President gave the parties until May 24, 2010, to submit their briefs with final arguments. 8. On March 29 and 30, 2010, the representatives, the Commission, and the State submitted the affidavits. 9. On March 29, 2010, Amancio Ruiz and Eduvigis Ruiz, alleged victims required by the President to provide their testimony by affidavit (supra para. 7), forwarded a communication indicating that Roberto Carlos Eaton Kent, owner of the ranch within which was part of the land claimed by the members of the Community and the employer of Amancio Ruiz, would be “organizing the testimony on behalf of the State of Paraguay.” According to the said alleged victims, Mr. Eaton “is the person who has been the most opposed to [their] Community’s claims; the person who harassed [them] and who always showed a profound lack of respect for [their] just claims. The person whose rights were always placed above [theirs] by the Paraguayan State; he is a permanent ally of the State to the detriment of [their] life, [their] culture, [their] people.” 10. On April 5, 2010, at the request of the Court, the State presented its observations on the information presented by Amancio Ruiz and Eduvigis Ruiz. It indicated that “the representatives of the State [had] accept[ed] in good faith Roberto 4 When the application was notified to the State, it was informed of its right to appoint a judge ad hoc for the consideration of the case. On September 16, 2009, the State appointed Augusto Fogel Pedrozo as Judge ad hoc. 5 Cf. Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, paras. 38.a, b, c, and d, and 39. 6 Cf. Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Order of the President of the Court of March 8, 2010. 3