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