4 brief of closing arguments, together with documentary evidence. Both the representatives and the State submitted evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the case as requested by the Court (supra para. 10). 12. As to the two-day delay incurred by the representatives in submitting their brief of closing arguments, the Court bears in mind that, according to its prior decisions in similar cases, “the formalities inherent to certain branches of domestic law do not apply under International Human Rights Law, the main purpose of which is the due and adequate protection of such rights.”7 Hence, it considers that such delay does not amount to an excessive term which may be the grounds for rejecting said brief, taking into consideration that the access of individuals to the Inter-American System for the Protection of Human Rights is particularly relevant for the elucidation of the facts8 and the determination of possible reparation measures. 13. On July 2, 2007; October 12, 2007; and December 28, 2007, the Court admitted, respectively, amici curiai briefs submitted by the Human Rights Clinic of the Master’s Degree in Fundamental Rights of Universidad Carlos III of Madrid, by the World Press Freedom Committee [Comité Mundial para la Libertad de Prensa], and by the Civil Rights Association [Asociación por los Derechos Civiles, ADC]. 14. On January 21, 2008, the State submitted a brief containing observations on the brief of closing arguments filed by the representatives, wherein it pointed out that the latter brief contained a paragraph which, according to the representatives, was part of the agreement reached by the parties in the instant case (supra para. 9), when, as a matter of fact, it was not a part thereof. Furthermore, the State challenged the amicus curiae filed by the Civil Rights Association (supra para. 13), claiming, inter alia, that it was time-barred, as […] all the procedures established in the [R]ules of Procedures of [the] Court regarding the submission and defense of the arguments related to the merits of the case had already been adopted.” 15. On January 29, 2008, the representatives “recogniz[ed] that there [had] been an inaccuracy in the transcript of a paragraph of the friendly settlement agreement entered by the parties,” which, in the Court’s opinion, overcomes the objection raised by the State (supra para. 14). 16. As to the alleged time-barred brief filed by the Civil Rights Association, the Court notes that amici curiai briefs are filed by third parties which are not involved in the controversy but provide the Court with arguments or views which may serve as evidence regarding the matters of law under the consideration of the Court. Hence, they may be submitted at any stage before the deliberation of the pertinent judgment. Furthermore, in accordance with the usual practice of the Court, amici curiai briefs may even address matters related to the compliance with judgment.9 On the other hand, the Court emphasizes that the issues submitted to its consideration are in the public interest or have such relevance that they require careful deliberation regarding the arguments publicly September 18, 2007, the term granted to the parties to submit their briefs of closing arguments would not be renewed, and that note of November 8, 2007, requesting evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the case provided that the representatives should include the information and documents requested “in their written closing arguments.” Therefore, said note did not modify the Order of the President in any manner whatsoever. 7 Cf. Case of Castillo-Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 4, 1998. Series C No. 41, para. 77, and Case of Acevedo-Jaramillo et at v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 7, 2006. Series C No. 144, para. 137. 8 9 Cf. Case of Escué-Zapata v. Colombia. Order of December 20, 2006, Considering paragraph No. 10. Cf. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al v. Panama. Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of November 28, 2005, Having Seen paragraph No. 14, and Case of Herrera-Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of September 22, 2006, Having Seen paragraph No. 10.

Select target paragraph3