the common intervener Feria Tinta, and the Commission to a private hearing to be held on February 26, 2011, regarding the monitoring of compliance with the Judgment. The other notes of the Secretary of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretary”) of February 11, December 2, 2011, and January 13, 2012, wherein it communicated to the parties and to the Commission, the Court’s decisions to suspend and reschedule the hearing (infra Having Seen clause 16) 6. 8. The briefs of January 31, February 4, November 4, 2011, and September 7 and 29, 2012 and its attachments, wherein the common intervener Feria Tinta referred to the compliance with the Judgment. 9. The briefs of February 9, and November 15, 2011, and its attachments, wherein the common intervening party Douglass Cassel (hereinafter “common intervener Cassel” or “Mr. Cassel”) made reference to the compliance with the Judgment. 7 10. The State’s brief of February 9, 2011, wherein it made reference to the suspension of the hearing. 11. The briefs of February 8, and November 28, 2011, wherein the Inter-American Commission forwarded its observations to the request to reschedule the hearing formulated by Mrs. Feria Tinta. 12. The notes of the Secretariat of November 8, 2012, wherein it was communicated to the parties and to the Commission that the Court considered it necessary that, prior to rescheduling the private hearing on the monitoring of compliance (supra Having Seen clause 7), the State should present, by no later than January 22, 2013, a written, complete, and current report on the monitoring of compliance regarding each of the measures of reparation ordered in the Judgment. 13. The brief of January 23, 2013, and its attachments, wherein the State forwarded the report requested by the Court in a note from the Secretariat (supra Having Seen clause 12), in relation to compliance with the Judgment. 14. The briefs of March 12 and 13, 2013, and its attachments, wherein the common intervening parties Feria Tinta and Cassel filed, respectively, their observations to that which was reported by the State. 15. The brief of April 8, 2013, wherein the Inter-American Commission filed its observations to the State’s report and to the observations of the common intervening parties. 6 The private hearing on the monitoring of compliance with the Judgment in this case was summoned and suspended on two occasions. It was rescheduled for August 19, 2013 (infra Having Seen 18). 7 During the stage of Monitoring of Compliance With Judgment in this case, the current Rules of Procedure of the Court came into effect, which allows for the participation of up to three common interveners of the representatives. Under Article 25 of that Rules of Procedure, in a note dated January 27, 2011, the Court decided upon the request submitted by the other group of representatives (which consisted of Mr. Douglass Cassel, Sabina Astete, Bertha Flores, Peter Erlinder, and Sean O’ Brien) distint from Mrs. Feria-and authorized that they could act as a second common intervener of the representatives of the victims and their next of kin at this stage. Cf. "Request" signed by Douglass Cassel, addressed to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, of January 22, 2011 (case file on monitoring of compliance, tome III, folios 1645-1650). 3

Select target paragraph3