6 6. The application was notified to the State and the representatives on February 23, 2010. On April 22, 2010, the State presented, in an anticipated manner, a brief denominated “answer to the application,” to which on June 10, 2010, the Secretariat, following the instructions of the plenary of the Court, reported that said brief could not be filed, given that, in the terms of Article 41 of the Rules of Procedure, the State was to give its position on the case once filed before the Inter-American Commission, and when filed, on the brief of pleadings, motions, and evidence, and that said brief was presented prior to the expiration of the period established for the representatives to do so. Once the State’s response and its annexes were received, (supra para. 5), it was forwarded to the Commission and the representatives, and following the instructions of the President, the date of September 20, 2010, was established as the deadline for the presentation of observations regarding the acknowledgement of responsibility by the State. 7. By means of the Order of September 10, 2010, the President of the Court accepted a request to replace the expert offered by the Commission, ordered that the submission of declarations rendered before a public notary (affidavit) by the witnesses and experts offered by the Commission and representatives, and convened the parties to a public hearing in Quito, Ecuador, to hear the declarations of the alleged victims, witnesses, and experts, proposed by the representatives, as well as the oral arguments of the parties, and the observations of the Commission regarding the merits and possible reparations. 8. On September 15 and 20, 2010, the representatives and Commission submitted their observations regarding the acknowledgment of State responsibility. 9. By means of the Order of September 23, 2010, the President of the Court accepted the request for replacement of one of the witnesses offered by the representatives for said individual to render a declaration at the public hearing. 10. On September 24 and 26, 2010, after an extension, the representatives submitted the declarations rendered before a public notary (affidavit). By means of the note of September 29, 2010, the Secretariat forwarded the declarations, and in the terms set forth in the Order of the President (supra para. 7), granted a period of 7 days for the parties to present the observations they deemed relevant, which were not formulated by any of the parties. 11. On September 27, 2010, the State submitted a brief wherein it was noted that “it recognizes [Mr.] Juan Gelman as a victim in the proceeding.” Following instructions by the President of the Court, the Secretariat indicated to the Commission and the representatives the possibility of presenting their observations concerning what was manifested by the State during the public hearing. 12. On October 5, 2010 the Commission requested the granting of a new deadline for María Elena Salgueiro to present an expert opinion submitted by means of an affidavit, to which the President of the Court held that since Commission had decided on September 24, 2010, not to present the expert opinion, said request was not sufficiently substantiated, and as such the Court did not further consider the matter.