5 advised them of the time limitations for submitting their brief of pleadings, motions and evidence (hereinafter “brief of pleadings and motions”). 19. On March 21, 2005, the State advised that it had designated Danielle Aleixo Reis do Valle Souza as Agent, and on March 29, 2005, it announced its designation of Murilo Vieira Komniski, Renata Lúcia de Toledo Pelizón, Carolina Campos de Melo and Cristina Timponi Cambiaghi as Alternate Agents. On both occasions, the State cautioned that it reserved the right to name other representatives to act in this case at a later date. 20. On April 18, 2005, the representatives filed their brief of pleadings and motions, attaching documentary evidence thereto and offering testimonial and expert evidence. The representatives claimed that the State had incurred international responsibility for its failure to investigate the death of Gilson Nogueira de Carvalho and for failing to punish the perpetrators, which entailed not only a breach of the rights established in Article 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and Article 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the Convention, but also violation of Article 4 (Right to Life), and that the Court had jurisdiction to rule on these three articles in reference to Article 1(1) of the Convention. They also asked the Court to order payment of compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, adoption of guarantees of nonrepetition and reimbursement of costs and expenses. 21. On June 21, 2005, the State filed its brief of preliminary objections, its response to the application and comments on the brief of pleadings and motions (hereinafter “brief of response to the application”), attaching documentary evidence thereto and offering testimonial evidence. The State began by pleading a preliminary objection of “lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis of [the] Court,” based on its understanding that the Commission, although it claimed violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention only, was in reality seeking a declaration of violation of the right to life; in the second place, the State claimed the objection of “non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.” The State also rejected the allegations that it had violated Articles 4(1), 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention. 22. On August 15 and 18, 2005, the representatives and the Commission filed their respective comments on the preliminary objections lodged by the State and asked the Court to reject them as inadmissible. 23. On November 30, 2005, the Inter-American Court handed down an order for Percílio de Souza, named as a witness by the Commission, Plácido Medeiros de Souza, named as a witness by the representatives and Augusto César Oliveira Serra Pinto, Célio de Figueiredo Maia and Gerson de Souza Barbosa, proposed as witnesses by the State, to submit testimony by means of sworn statements made to an authorized public official (affidavit). It also summoned Belisário dos Santos Júnior, proposed as an expert witness by the Commission, and Luiz Flávio Gomes, proposed as an expert witness by the representatives, to render their expert testimony by means of sworn statements made to an authorized public official (affidavit). The Court granted the parties until January 11, 2006 to file all these statements. In its order, the court also convened the Commission, the representatives and the State to a public hearing to take place at the seat of the Inter-American Court on February 8, 2006, to hear closing oral pleadings on the preliminary objections and merits, reparations and costs, as well as the testimony of Fernando Batista de Vasconcelos, named by the Commission, and Gilson José Ribeiro Campos and Henrique César Cavalcanti, named by the State. Finally, the Court informed the parties that they had a non-extendible deadline of March 10, 2006 to submit their closing arguments in writing on the instant case. 24. On December 21, 2005, the State notified the Court that it was designating Milton Nunes Toledo Júnior to serve as Alternate Agent.