by the Republic of Guatemala (hereinafter, also the “State” or “Guatemala”) on
November 22, 2011, by means of which it offered one testimony.
7.
The note of the Tribunal’s Secretariat of March 23, 2012, by which, on the
President’s instructions and in accordance with article 46.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of
Procedure 2 (hereinafter, the “Rules of Procedure”) the Court requested the InterAmerican Commission, the representatives and the State to forward, no later than
March 30, 2012, their respective definitive lists of declarants (hereinafter, “definitive
lists”) and indicate, based on the principle of procedural economy, to the Court their
position as to which of the declarants offered should be summoned to the hearing,
where applicable, and which declarants can render their statements through affidavits.
8.
The briefs of March 30, 2012, by which the Inter-American Commission, the
representatives and the State presented their definitive lists of declarants and
indicated which of the declarants so offered could render their statements through
affidavit and which declarants should be summoned to the hearing. By means of the
respective brief, the representatives also offered a new statement to be rendered by
an alleged victim and requested, in case such offering was not admitted, to replace a
statement initially offered in the brief of pleadings and motions.
9.
The note of the Tribunal’s Secretariat of April 17, 2012, by which the Court
granted the Commission, the representatives and the State a term of 10 days to
present the observations they deem pertinent regarding the definitive lists of the
Inter-American Commission, the representatives and the State, respectively.
10.
The communication of April 27, 2012, by which the Inter-American Commission
asked for an extension to present its observations to the definitive lists of declarants of
the representatives and of the State (supra Having Seen clause 9).
11.
The brief of April 26, 2012 whereby the representatives pointed out that they
had no observations to the definitive lists of the Inter-American Commission and the
State. Moreover, the brief of April 27, 2012, whereby the State did not present
observations to the definitive lists of declarants of the representatives and of the InterAmerican Commission. Furthermore, the brief of May 4, 2012, whereby the
Commission did not present observations to the definitive lists of declarants of the
representatives and of the State, and requested the Court to interrogate one of the
expert witnesses proposed by the representatives.
12.
The communication of May 30, 2012, by which the Inter-American Commission
indicated that, “due to force majeure reasons, [...], expert witness Juan Méndez would
be unable” to attend the public hearing to be held in the instant case; therefore, it
requested the Court to receive the expert opinion of Mr. Mendez “through affidavit”.

CONSIDERING THAT:

2
Rules of Procedure approved by the Court during its LXXXV Ordinary Period of Sessions, held from
November 16 to 28, 2009.

2

Select target paragraph3