Fund was admissible and decided that they would be granted the necessary financial assistance to present a maximum of five statements, either by affidavit or at a public hearing. 8. The brief of April 20, 2012, in which the Argentine Republic (hereinafter “the State” or “Argentina”) presented its brief with preliminary objections, answering the submission of the case and with observations on the brief with pleadings, motions and evidence (hereinafter the “answering brief”). The State did not offer testimonial or expert evidence. 9. The note of the Secretariat of June 19, 2012, in which it asked the representative and the Commission to submit their respective final lists of proposed deponents (hereinafter “final lists”) by June 28, 2012, at the latest, and that, for reasons of procedural economy, they should indicate those who could provide their statements or expert opinions by affidavit. 10. The communication of June 27, 2012, in which the Inter-American Commission requested an extension of the time frame for the submission of its final list of deponents. The note of the Secretariat of June 28, 2010, in which the Commission was granted an extension until July 3, 2012, to submit its final list of deponents (supra having seen paragraph 9). 11. The briefs of June 25 and July 3, 2012, in which the representative and the InterAmerican Commission, respectively, submitted their final lists of deponents and indicated those who could provide their expert opinion and/or statement by affidavit and those who could do this during the public hearing. 12. The note of the Secretariat of July 6, 2012, in which the Inter-American Commission, the representative and the State were granted 10 days to present any observations they deemed pertinent on the final lists of deponents. 13. The briefs of July 6 and 7, 2012, in which the Inter-American Commission and the representative, respectively, presented their observations on the preliminary objections filed by the State (supra having seen paragraph 8). 14. The communication of July 11, 2012, in which the Commission indicated it had no observations to make on the representative’s final list of deponents and asked the Court to allow it “to pose questions, either orally or in writing, as relevant and reasonable, to the expert witness [Liliana] Gimol Pinto,” whose expert opinion was offered by the representative. The representative did not present observations on the Inter-American Commission’s final list of deponents. 15. The brief of July 13, 2012, in which the State asked for “a reasonable extension to the time limit initially granted” for the presentation of their observations on the final lists of deponents of the Commission and the representative. The note of July 17, 2012, in which, on the instructions of the President of the Court, the Secretariat informed the State that the request for an extension was inadmissible. Argentina did not present observations on the final list of deponents of the Inter-American Commission and representative. 16. The brief of July 31, 2012, in which the representative indicated that presumed victim Marta Graciela Olguín, who had been proposed to testify during the public hearing, would be unable to attend the hearing, and therefore asked that her testimony be received by affidavit. 2