7 the State (supra paras. 23, 24 and 25), with appendixes. In this brief and its appendixes, the representatives requested the Inter-American Court to reject the preliminary objections. 28. On February 20, 2004, the State forwarded a communication in which it declared that “it rejected the arguments on merits submitted by the other parties in the written arguments on preliminary objections.” El Salvador also indicated that it considered it important “to hold a hearing on objections, prior to considering the merits; and also that it was necessary to grant an opportunity for rejoinder concerning the arguments on merits submitted by the other parties” and, based on Article 38 of the Rules of Procedure, it requested the Court to grant it the opportunity “to present arguments on the preliminary objections, and the respective rejoinder to the other parties.” 29. On April 1, 2004, the representatives submitted a brief in which they advised that María Victoria Cruz Franco, mother of the alleged victims, had died on March 30, 2004. On April 20, 2004, the representatives submitted a copy of Mrs. Cruz Franco’s death certificate. 30. On May 4, 2004, on the instructions of the judges of the Court, the Secretariat informed the parties that: (a) it would duly assess the written arguments on the preliminary objections presented by the Inter-American Commission and the representatives and would take into account what the State had indicated as regards these briefs; (b) regarding the procedural opportunity to respond to these briefs on preliminary objections of the Commission and the representatives, the State could do this when presenting its oral arguments during the public hearing that it would convene, and also when presenting its final written arguments; the Court therefore considered it unnecessary to carry out any further actions in the written proceeding; and (c) respecting the principle of procedural economy, the Court holds a single hearing on preliminary objections and the possible stages of merits, reparations and costs, except in extremely rare cases when it is considered absolutely necessary, as indicated in Article 37(5) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court. In this regard, the Secretariat told the parties that the Court had examined the request made by the State (supra para. 28) and considered, as it had in almost all cases since the most recent changes in its Rules of Procedure, that it was not necessary to hold a hearing on preliminary objections separately from the hearing on the possible stages of merits, reparations and costs in this case. 31. On August 6, 2004, the President issued an order convening the parties to a public hearing to be held at the seat of the Court as of September 7, 2004, to hear their final oral arguments on preliminary objections and merits, reparation, and costs, and the testimonial statements of Suyapa Serrano Cruz, Elsy Rosibel Dubón Romero and Jon María Cortina, proposed by the Inter-American Commission and endorsed by the representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin, and also the statements of Jorge Alberto Orellana Osorio, Miguel Uvence Argueta, Ida María Grott de García and María Esperanza Franco Orellana de Miranda, proposed as witnesses by the State. In this order, the President also informed the parties that they had until October 8, 2004, to submit their final written arguments on preliminary objections and merits, reparation, and costs. 32. On August 20, 2004, the International Commission of Jurists remitted an amicus curiae brief.