4 6. The Court has jurisdiction over this case in accordance with Article 62(3) of the American Convention, given the fact that Venezuela has been a State Party to the American Convention since August 9, 1977 and has accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court on June 24, 1981. III PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 7. On May 11, 2007 the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter, “the Secretariat”), prior to a preliminary examination of the application conducted by the then President of the Court and in accordance with Articles 34 and 35(1) of the Rules of Procedure, notified, via facsimile, said application to the State6 and the representative.7 On that same day, the application was forwarded via courier together with the exhibits, which were received by the representatives and the State on May 14, 2007.8 On June 29, 2007, the State appointed Mr. Pier Paolo Pasceri Scaramuzza as Judge ad hoc. 8. After the filing of the brief containing pleadings, motions and evidence (supra para. 4), on September 17, 2007, the representatives submitted a brief with "additional information to the autonomous brief of pleadings, motions and evidence" (infra para. 51 and 52). 9. Upon the filing of the brief containing the State’s response to the application (supra para. 5), on October 12, 2007, the then President of the Court issued a Decision by means of which he decided not to accept the State's request, filed as a preliminary objection, in order to exclude Judges Cecilia Medina Quiroga and Diego García-Sayán from hearing the case and he furthermore, submitted such decision to the full Court. On October 18, 2007, the Court issued an Order by means of which the State’s request of disqualifying Judges Cecilia Medina Quiroga and Diego García-Sayán from hearing the case was declared inadmissible and the Court accepted the self-disqualification of Judge García-Sayán (infra para. 35 to 37). 6 Upon notice of the application to the State, the State was informed of its right to answer the application and, if applicable, to submit comments to the brief containing pleadings, motions and evidence presented by the alleged victims or their representatives within a period of 4 months of the notification, which may not be extended in accordance with Article 38 of the Rules of Procedure. Furthermore, under the terms of Articles 35(3) and 21(3) of the Rules of Procedure, the State was requested to designate, within one month, an Agent to represent the State before the Court and, if it deems necessary, a Deputy Agent. Lastly, the State was communicated of its possibility to appoint a judge ad hoc within thirty days following notice of the application, to participate in the discussion of the case. 7 Furthermore, upon notice of the application to the representatives, they were informed of their right to submit a brief containing pleadings, motions and evidence within a non-renewable term of two months, as of notice of said application, in accordance with Articles 23 and 36(1) of the Rules of Procedure. 8 Moreover, the State was requested to, upon the filing of the brief containing the answer to the application, forward full and legible copies of the documentation requested by the Commission in paragraph 261 of the application, namely “ copies of all the documents related to the investigations and proceedings carried out under domestic jurisdiction in connection with the incidents covered by this case, together with authenticated copies of the applicable legislation and regulatory provisions”, as long as said information was not already contained in the case file before this Tribunal. On April 17, 2008, following the instructions of the President of the Court, the State was one more time requested to forward, no later than April 25, 2008, all the information and documentation requested by means of the Secretariat’s note of May 11, 2007. On May 6, 2008, the State furnished such information and documentation in response to such request.