and requested that they, pursuant to the terms of Article 46(1) of the Rules of Procedure 2,
provide a final list of declarants. Moreover, in light of the principle of procedural fairness and in
application of the foregoing Article of the Rules of Procedure, a request was made for each
party to indicate which declarants could render their statement before a notary public
(affidavit), and which could be summoned to render their statement at the public hearing.
6.
The brief of May 8, 2012, wherein the representatives presented their final list and
offered statements provided by affidavit of fourteen alleged victims, of one witnesses, and four
expert witnesses (of whom they requested the replacement of one of the initially offered
expert witnesses), as well as the statements of six alleged victims and an expert witness to be
heard during the public hearing.
7.
The communication of May 9, 2012, wherein the Commission confirmed
one expert witness for the hearing and gave up another expert witness.

the offer of

8.
The brief and its annexes of May 9, 2012, wherein the State provided its final list of
declarants and offered two expert opinions and one statement for the hearing, as well as two
expert opinions by affidavit. In this brief, the State specified the names of the expert witnesses
that it offered, provided their curriculum vitaes, and reiterated its “subsidiary” request. (supra
Having Seen clause 4).
9.
The notes of the Secretariat of May 10, 2012, wherein the final lists of the declarants
was provided and the parties were informed that, pursuant to Article 46 of the Rules of
Procedure and following instructions by the President, they had until May 16, 2012, to present
the observations they deemed necessary.
10.
The briefs of May 15 and 16, 2012, wherein the representatives, the Commission, and
the State provided their observations to the final list of declarants.
11.
The note of the Secretariat of May 18, 2012, wherein, following instructions of the
President of the Court, and notwithstanding what is decided regarding the alleged time-barred
nature of the expert evidence offered by the State, in application of Article 48(3) of the Rules
of Procedure of the Court, the State was required to provide the objections presented by the
representatives to the four persons proposed as expert witnesses in its final list of declarants
in order that, by no later than May 23, 2012, they present observations.
12.
The communication of May 21, 2012, wherein the parties were informed the date of the
hearing.
13.
The communication of May 22, 2012, wherein the State requested an extension of three
days in order to present its observations to the four persons offered as expert witnesses given
the objections of the representatives, as well as the note of the Secretariat dated the following
day, wherein, following instructions of the President, the extension was granted until May 25,
2012.
14.
The briefs of May 22 and 23, 2012, wherein the representatives and the Commission
presented, respectively, their observations to the preliminary objections and the
“acknowledgment of responsibility” effectuated by the State.
15.
The briefs of May 24 and 25, 2012, wherein Messers. Héctor Alfredo Amaya Cristancho,
Efraín Acosta Jaramillo, Máximo Duque, and Juan Pablo Franco Jiménez, offered as expert
witnesses by the State, presented their observations to the objections presented regarding
their participation in this case.
16.
The brief of May 24, 2012, wherein the representatives made reference to the request
for an extension presented by the State and reiterated other arguments regarding the
admissibility of the evidence the State had offered.
2

Rules of Procedure approved by the Court in its LXXXV Regular Period of Sessions held on November 16 to
28, 2009.

2

Select target paragraph3