-4the time limits for answering the application and appointing its representatives in the proceedings. 17. On August 4, 2005, the Secretariat, pursuant to the provisions of Article 35(1)(e) of the Rules of Procedure, notified the application and its appendixes to Juan Pablo Olmedo Bustos, representative of the alleged victims (hereinafter “the representative”), informing him of the time limit for presenting his brief with requests, arguments and evidence (hereinafter “requests and arguments brief”). 18. On August 5, 2005, the State submitted a brief in which it requested the Court “to consider the information provided opportunely to the Inter-American Commission[, in communications of June 30, 2005 (supra para. 13) and July 8, 20051, when making the preliminary examination of the merits of the application for the effects of admissibility.” 19. On August 23, 2005, the State appointed Amira Esquivel Utreras as Agent and Miguel Ángel González Morales as Deputy Agent. 20. On September 28, 2005, the representative forwarded his requests and arguments brief accompanied by documentary evidence, and offered expert evidence. On October 3, 2005, he presented the appendixes to this brief. 21. On December 2, 2005, the State submitted the brief answering the application and with observations on the requests and arguments brief, together with documentary evidence, and offered testimonial and expert evidence. On December 23, 2005, it presented the appendixes to this brief. 22. On January 17, 2006, the Commission submitted a communication accrediting Lilly Ching as legal adviser in this case, in substitution of Lisa Yagel (supra para. 15). 23. On February 7, 2006, the Court issued an order in which it called upon Sebastián Cox Urrejola and Arturo Longton, proposed as witnesses by the Commission, and Andrés Emilio Culagovski Rubio and Liliana Guiditta Macchiavelo Martini, proposed by the State, to provide their testimony by means of statements made before notary public (affidavits). It also called upon Claudio Francisco Castillo Castillo, proposed as an expert witness by the State, and Tomás Vial del Solar, Miguel Ángel Fernández and Davor Harasic Yaksic, proposed as expert witnesses by the representative, to provide their expert opinions by way of statements made before notary public (affidavits). In the same order, the Court convened the parties to a public hearing to be held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, on April 3, 2006, in the courtroom of the Supreme Court, to hear their final oral arguments on merits and possible reparations and costs, as well as the testimonial statements of Marcel Claude Reyes, proposed by the Commission, and Eduardo Jorge Moyano Berríos, proposed by the State, as well as the expert opinions of Ernesto Villanueva, proposed by the Commission, Roberto Mayorga Lorca, proposed by the alleged victims’ representative, and Carlos Carmona Santander, proposed by the State. In this order, the Court also informed the parties that they had until May 18, 2006, to submit their final written arguments on merits and possible reparations and costs. The Court also admitted the 1 On July 8, 2005, Chile, through its Embassy in Costa Rica, presented to the Secretariat of the Court copy of a communication dated July 8, 2005, from the State to the Inter-American Commission in which, inter alia, it “reiterate[d] its willingness to comply with the recommendations contained in Report No. 31/05 of March 7, 2005, […] and to adopt the necessary measures to this end, coordinating the actions of the respective bodies of the State Administration.”

Select target paragraph3