application”) presented on October 28, 2011, by Argentina, in which it did not offer
deponents. In addition, the State contested an expert opinion proposed by the
representatives.
6.
The Order of the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”) of November
23, 2011, regarding the presumed victims’ request to access the Victims’ Assistance Fund
(supra having seen paragraph 3).
7.
The briefs of December 9 and 10, 2011, whereby the representatives and the InterAmerican Commission, respectively, presented their observations on the preliminary
objections filed by the State.
8.
The notes of the Secretariat of November 25, 2011, in which, on the instructions of
the President of the Court and in accordance with Article 46(1) of the Rules of Procedure of
the Court applicable to this case2 (hereinafter “the Court’s Rules of Procedure” or “the Rules
of Procedure”), it asked the representatives and the Inter-American Commission to forward,
by December 2, 2011, at the latest, their respective definitive lists of deponents in order to
schedule the public hearing on the preliminary objections and possible merits, reparations
and costs in the instant case. In addition, for reasons of procedural economy, they were
asked to indicate which deponents could provide their testimony by affidavit, and which
should be called to testify at the public hearing.
9.
The brief of December 9, 2011, in which the Inter-American Commission, having
been granted the extension requested, presented its definitive list of deponents. The
Commission confirmed the offer of the two proposed expert witnesses (supra having seen
paragraphs 1 and 2) and asked that both be called to testify at the public hearing.
10.
The brief of December 2, 2011, in which the representatives forwarded their
definitive list of deponents and presented observations on the objection to the evidence
presented by the State (supra having seen paragraph 5). The representatives abstained
from offering one expert witness3 and confirmed the other testimonies and expert opinions
offered (supra having seen paragraph ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia.).
In addition, they indicated who could provide their testimony by affidavit and who they
considered should be called to testify at the public hearing.
11.
The Secretariat’s notes of December 9, 2011, with which it forwarded the definitive
lists to the parties and informed them that they had until December 19, 2011, to present
any observations they deemed pertinent.
12.
The brief of December 19, 2011, in which the Inter-American Commission indicated
that it had no observations to make on the definitive list of deponents presented by the
representatives. In addition, the Commission asked that it be allowed to pose questions to
the two expert witnesses proposed by the representatives.
13.
The Secretariat’s note of December 21, 2011, with which the observations presented
by the Commission were forwarded (supra having seen paragraph 12), placing on record

2
2009.

Rules of Procedure approved by the Court at its eighty-fifth regular session, held from November 16 to 28,

3
The representatives indicated that “since the testimony of Dr. Alejandro Morlachetti, an expert witness
offered by the Inter-American Commission” concurs “substantially with the testimony of Dr. Pablo Oscar Corrales,
proposed by this party,” they had decided “to abstain from offering his testimony in the instant case.”

2

Select target paragraph3