4 video cassettes, which have not yet been submitted at the time the instant Judgment is rendered. 13. On June 7, 2001 the State informed the Court that, on May 4 of that same year, it appointed Hermann Escarrá Malavé as agent for Venezuela in the instant case, in substitution of Raúl Arrieta Cuevas. 14. On June 18, 2001, after the notices were published in the press, the representatives of the victims and of the next of kin submitted several documents pertaining to several victims in the instant case and to processing of the criminal proceedings under domestic jurisdiction. 15. On September 3, 2001 the State informed the Court that it had appointed Jorge Dugarte Contreras as its agent, in substitution of Hermann Escarrá Malavé. 16. On September 12, 2001 the representatives of the victims and next of kin of the victims submitted a list of witnesses and expert witnesses, which was in accordance with their statement in this regard in their February 12, 2000 brief on reparations, and pointed out that due to the great number of witnesses it was difficult to cover the expenses for their travel to the seat of the Court, for which reason they requested that the latter appoint a representative to receive their testimony in Caracas, Venezuela. 17. On October 25, 2001 the representatives of the victims and of the next of kin filed a new list of 44 witnesses (of whom seven were new witnesses) and six expert witnesses. They also reiterated the request for their testimony to be received in Venezuela, and they requested that the Court order the expert witnesses to appear before the Court. 18. On November 6, 2001 the Inter-American Commission informed the Court that it had no objections to the persons listed nor to the object of the testimony of those offered as witnesses and expert witnesses by the representatives of the victims and of their next of kin. It added that it did not object to the examination of the witnesses taking place in Venezuela, as long as a Judge of the Court represented the Court to ensure immediacy of evidence and independence and impartiality of the examination. 19. On November 15, 2001 Venezuela informed the Court of “the decision of the Venezuelan State to annul the brief with observations and evidence on reparations and legal costs” filed on September 18, 2000. It added that the State had recognized the facts set forth by the Commission in section III of the application, during the public hearing held on November 10, 1999, as well as, and fully, its international responsibility in the instant case. The State also pointed out that it accepted the case law of the Court regarding reparations. Finally, it stated that Venezuela would provide whatever necessary information was requested by the Court and would “in good faith, accept the truthfulness of all information submitted by the applicants or their representatives, with prior sworn statements that the content of said information is truthful, so as to accelerate this case inasmuch as possible.” 20. On December 5, 2001 the Court reached the following decision regarding the testimony offered by the representatives of the victims and of the next of kin: it accepted the testimony of the persons offered as witnesses by the representatives in the October 25, 2001 brief who had already been listed in the February 12, 2000