6. Notification to the State and to the representative. The State 2 and the representative of the alleged victim (hereinafter “the representative”) 3 were notified of the fact that the case had been submitted to the Court, in communications dated January 14, 2021. 7. Failure to file the brief with pleadings, motions and evidence. The representative of the alleged victims failed to file the brief with pleadings, motions and evidence within the time allowed. 8. Brief with preliminary objection and answering brief. On May 19, 2021, the State presented its answering brief in response to the Commission’s submission and Merits Report (hereinafter “answering brief”). In its brief, Ecuador raised a preliminary objection. It asked the Court to declare that it was not internationally responsible for the alleged violations and, therefore, to refrain from ordering reparation measures. 9. Briefs with observations on the preliminary objection. In briefs dated July 18 and 19, 2021, the representative and the Commission, respectively, submitted their observations on the preliminary objection raised by the State. 10. Public Hearing. On May 17, 2022, the President of the Court issued a call to a public hearing on the preliminary objection, and the possible merits, reparations and costs. 4 The public hearing was held on July 1, 2022, by videoconference, pursuant to the Court’s Rules of Procedure, during the Court’s 147th regular session. 5 11. Amici Curiae. The Court received two amicus curiae briefs, presented by: a) Damián A. González-Salzberg, professor and researcher in international law and human rights at the University of Birmingham, United Kingdom; 6 and b) the Human Rights Clinic of the University of Santa Clara. 7 12. Final written arguments and observations. On July 31 and August 1, 2022, the representative, the Commission, and the State, respectively, submitted their final written arguments and their final written observations. The documents from the State included a number of annexes. 8 In a communication dated February 12, 2021, the State named María Fernanda Álvarez Alcívar as its principal representative, and Mirella Tonato, Carlos Espín Arias and Alonso Fonseca Garcés as alternate representatives. 3 Gabriel Palacios Verdesoto served as the representative of the alleged victims. 4 Cf. Case of Aroca Palma et al. v. Ecuador. Call to a hearing. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 17, 2022. Available at: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/aroca_palma_y_otros_17_05_22.pdf. 5 The hearing was attended by: a) on behalf of the Commission: Jorge Meza Flores, Assistant Executive Secretary, and Erick Acuña Pereda, Advisor; b) on behalf of the alleged victims: Gabriel Palacios Verdesoto and Ronald Aroca Palma; and c) on behalf of the Ecuadorian State: María Fernanda Álvarez, National Director of Human Rights; Carlos Espín Arias, National Deputy Director of Human Rights; Alonso Fonseca Garcés, human rights litigation attorney; and Mirella Tonato Chica, human rights litigation attorney. 6 The brief includes proposed reparations to be considered in the instant case, with special reference to compensation for non-pecuniary damage. 7 The brief was signed by Francisco J. Rivera Juaristi, Director of the Human Rights Clinic. The brief deals with points of law regarding the use of lethal force by agents of the state. 8 The State submitted the following documents: a) judgment of conviction of Second Lieutenant Carlos Eduardo Rivera Enríquez of the National Police; b) statements of the four people involved in Mr. Aroca Palma’s death; c) memorandum from the Metropolitan Police officer detailing the events that occurred in the early hours of February 27, 2001; d) measure requesting the files from the court previously in charge of the case and ordering the preventive detention of the police officer and the patrol car driver; e) indictment against the Metropolitan Police officer and the patrol car driver as accessories in the case; f) measure of March 30, 2001, issued by the Second Court of the Fourth National Police District; g) prosecutor’s indictment of September 18, 2001, against police officer Carlos Eduardo Rivera Enríquez as the perpetrator of the murder of Joffre Aroca, and National Police officer EPYE as an accessory after the fact; h) summons to appear of October 29, 2001, in which the Court also ordered the arrest of Second Lieutenant Carlos Eduardo Rivera Enríquez; i) ruling of January 8, 2002, on the challenges to the summons to appear, confirming in all its parts the reasoned order issued by the lower court; j) measure of January 31, 2002, ordering Second Lieutenant Carlos Eduardo Rivera Enríquez and officer EPYE to appear on the date and time specified to be examined 2 5