resources.” Additionally, it indicated that in the brief of pleadings and motions, the representative indicated having carried out "specialization courses and educational programs abroad, as well as teaching work" and had been the recipient of a monetary award from the Gruber Foundation, “things that by all indications would argue against a lack of financial resources.” According to the State, the use of the Assistance Fund in this case “would denature its purpose and goal” of “covering the litigation expenses for individuals […] facing a dreadful economic situation, such as, for example, the indigent.” This is not the situation with the alleged victim, “who has for more than 19 years been living abroad and [who has a] professional profile that she herself points to in the [brief of pleadings and motions].” 7. In response to these objections from the State, the representative observed that "the Peruvian State has not demonstrated why [the] sworn affidavit is not ‘probative evidence’ or why it should be given less legal weight than the sworn affidavit provided by any other victim.” Additionally, she indicated that contrary to what the State had indicated, she “[sought] the support of organizations with human and material resources" to assist her in the litigation. However, they turned her down precisely "due to a lack of material and human resources," for which she provided evidence. She highlighted that in addition to the bank account statement, she submitted “other evidence demonstrating that [… she is] in debt […] and [that] she [is] facing financial difficulties.” She explained that her qualifications "do not contradict a lack of financial resources," as “she studied international law thanks to scholarships obtained through her own academic efforts," for which she provided a document as evidence. Likewise, she indicated that "far from being able to pursue a normal working life" she has had to face litigation in two cases before the InterAmerican System because “the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights separated [her] complaint […] into two.” She indicated that litigation in the case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison “left her […] with a debt of approximately 120,000 thousand pounds sterling [...]” and that even though the Court ordered the State to reimburse her in the amount of US$75,000 (seventy-five thousand dollars of the United States of America) for costs and expenses, Peru "has not complied with this," for which reason the Gruber prize “in no way ‘made [her] rich.’” In addition, she argued that the Rules of Procedure of the Fund "do not disqualify anyone" based on place of residence "nor do they require the victim to be completely indigent in order to access legal aid. Rather, aid is granted based on the objective financial situation of the victim that makes him or her incapable of covering legal costs.” Finally, the representative attached, inter alia, a new bank account statement from September of 2012, once again showing a negative balance. 8. First of all, the acting President finds that the request to access the Assistance Fund of the Court was submitted in a timely fashion in the brief of pleadings and motions (supra Having Seen clause 2). Likewise, he recalls that the alleged victims “are the ones who shall benefit from the [Assistance] Fund."7 Nevertheless, he notes that in this case, the alleged victim is representing herself. 9. Regarding the State’s objections with regard to the alleged victim’s lack of financial resources, the acting President highlights that evaluation of an alleged victim’s lack of resources must take into account the alleged victim’s situation at the time the litigation before the Court takes place. In this sense, the acting President observes that the State’s objections do not invalidate the evidence provided by the representative regarding her 7 Cf. Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 4, 2011, Considering clause 9, and Case of Suarez Peralta v. Ecuador. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 14, 2012, Considering clause 10. 4