7.
The brief of November 17, 2011, by means of which the State forwarded its
definitive list, confirmed the two proposed persons and indicated that both of them
could be summoned to the public hearing.
8.
The Secretariat’s notes of November 18, 2011, by means of which, on the
President’s instructions, the Inter-American Commission and the representatives
were granted until November 21, 2011, to forward their definitive lists.
9.
The briefs of November 21, 2011, by which the Inter-American Commission
and the representatives forwarded the definitive lists. The Commission confirmed
the item of expert evidence previously offered and indicated that two expert
witnesses could be summoned to the public hearing and the third one could render
his opinion through affidavit. The representatives confirmed six alleged victims and
six expert witnesses and they pointed out that three alleged victims and two expert
witnesses could be summoned to the public hearing, while three alleged victims and
four expert witnesses could render their statements through affidavits.
10.
The Secretariat’s note of November 22, 2011, by means of which the
Tribunal transmitted the definitive lists to the parties and informed them that they
had until December 2, 2011, to present the observations they deem pertinent.
11.
The briefs of November 2, 2011, by which the Inter-American Commission
and the representatives forwarded their respective observations to the definitive
lists. The Commission indicated that it had no observations regarding the definitive
lists presented by the State and the representatives and requested the Tribunal the
possibility of interrogating the declarants proposed by Guatemala and an expert
witness proposed by the representatives. Moreover, the representatives indicated
that they had no observations to the definitive list of the Commission; however,
regarding the list of the State: a) they noted that, at first, Guatemala proposed two
persons as expert witnesses and then, in its definitive list, it did not clarify the
capacity in which they were offered, and b) they indicated, also, that said persons
could not act in the capacity as expert witnesses, due to their subordinate relation
to the State given that they are civil servants and both of them had intervened, at
the domestic level, in this case. Therefore, they requested the Tribunal to clarify
whether said persons would render statements in the capacity as witnesses. In
addition, they preliminary informed on findings allegedly related to the case and
requested the Court to include an additional witness to said facts.
12.
The brief of December 16, 2011, and the annexes thereto, by which the
representatives forwarded information and documents on alleged supervening facts
and reiterated the request to include one more witness in their offer of declarants
to be summoned to the hearing.
13.
The Secretariat’s notes of December 21, 2011, by means of which, on the
President’s instructions and based on the terms of article 57.2 of the Rules of
Procedure, the Tribunal granted the State and the Inter-American Commission a
time limit to forward the observations they deem pertinent regarding the facts
informed by the representatives.
14.
The brief of January 25, 2012, by which the State indicated that “it had no
objection to the Tribunal's admission of additional information presented by the
representatives[,] and admission of [Mr.] Fredy Peccerelli as witness”.
CONSIDERING THAT:

2

Select target paragraph3