essential, as indicated in the Court’s Rules of Procedure.1 Thus, even though the Court’s practice in recent years has consisted in receiving, in a single oral proceeding, the testimony provided by the parties, as well as their arguments on the preliminary objections and on the eventual merits, reparations and costs,2 the Court is empowered to convene a separate hearing on the preliminary objections if it considers this pertinent, under the abovementioned Article 42(5). Taking into account the scope of this case and having considered the corresponding arguments and observations of the parties and of the Commission, the Court finds it desirable to convene the parties and the Commission to a special hearing on the preliminary objections filed by the State in this case. As established in the said Article 42(5) of its Rules of Procedure, the Court considers that, during the said special hearing on preliminary objections, arguments should be presented on all the preliminary objections filed by the State, including the so-called “nullity request” with regard to the proceedings before the Commission. 7. Furthermore, in order not to affect the expeditious processing of this case before the Inter-American Court, the Court finds it pertinent to convene the parties and the Commission to the hearing on the eventual merits, reparations and costs during the same session in which the special hearing on the preliminary objections decided in the preceding paragraph is held. Thus, in this case, two hearing will be held during the same session of the Court: the first on the preliminary objections and the second on the eventual merits, reparations and costs. THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, in exercise of the authority granted to it by Articles 25 of the Statute of the Court and 15(1), 31, 42, 45 and 46 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, DECIDES: 1. To rule that a special public hearing be heard on the preliminary objections filed by the State in the instant case. 2. To rule that the hearing on the eventual merits, reparations and costs be held during the same session of the Inter-American Court in which the special hearing on the preliminary objections is convened. 3. To request the Republic of Colombia, the representatives of the presumed victims, and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, pursuant to Article 46(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, to forward by June 24, 2013, at the latest, their final list of 1 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Preliminary objections. Judgment of November 23, 2004. Series C No. 118, para. 30, and Case of the Pacheco Tineo Family v. Bolivia. Order of the President of the Court of February 19, 2013, twentieth considering paragraph. 2 Cf. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Order of the President of the Court of March 30, 2007, second considering paragraph; Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil. Order of the President of the Court of October 8, 2008, fifteenth considering paragraph; Case of Sétimo Garibaldi v. Brazil. Order of the President of the Court of November 20, 2008, twelfth considering paragraph; Case of Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Order of the President of the Court of December 22, 2009, forty-fourth considering paragraph; Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Order of the President of the Court of July 2, 2010, eleventh considering paragraph, and Case of the Pacheco Tineo Family v. Bolivia. Order of the President of the Court of February 19, 2013, twentieth considering paragraph. 3