5. The representatives submitted a request to cover some costs related to the production of evidence during the proceedings before the Court , particularly with regard to “[t]ravel expenses (fares, hotel and per diem) for the persons summoned to testify by the Court at a hearing, including victims, witnesses and expert witnesses, according to Article 50 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure”, together with the “[n]otary costs associated with taking statements from victims, witnesses and expert witnesses that the Court deems pertinent to receive by affidavit, according to the aforesaid article.” The representatives provided a list of fourteen people, nine witnesses and five expert witnesses, and presented an estimate of the expenses incurred for the appearance of six of these deponents at the public hearing at the seat of the Court. Based on this assumption, for the six deponents (four alleged victims, one expert witness), they estimated total expenses of approximately US $10,475.06 (ten thousand, four hundred and seventy-five dollars of the United States of America and six cents). This amount includes transportation costs from the deponents’ place of residence, as well as accommodation and per diems during their five-day stay in San Jose, Costa Rica. The representatives also pointed out that “if the hearing should take place in a place other than Costa Rica, the expenses could vary considerably.” In relation to the statements or expert opinions that the Court decides should be rendered by affidavit, they stated that “the approximate cost of notarizing sworn statements in the Dominican Republic is USD 40.00 each [and] this cost may vary depending on the number of pages contained in the document.” Moreover, given that the majority of the alleged victims live outside Santo Domingo and Port-au-Prince, it would be necessary for two attorneys of MUDHA or GARR, as the case may be, to travel to place where they are, or cover their transfer from their place of residence. The approximate cost of this is US $500.00 (five hundred dollars of the United States of America). 6. The representatives based their request on the fact that the alleged victims “do not have the necessary financial resources to cover this process.” In support of this request, the representatives presented the sworn statements of members of the various families of the alleged victims, namely: of William Medina Ferreras, Berson Gelin, Jeannise Midy, Antonio Sesión, Víctor Jean, Benito Tide Méndez and Rafaelito Pérez Charles (supra Have Seen 2). These statements confirm that neither these individuals, nor their family members, have the financial resources necessary to cover the costs of litigation before the Court. 7. Also, the representatives explained that there are a number of expenses that they are in a position to cover and that, therefore, the alleged victims had not included these in their request for assistance from the Fund, which they specified, “on the understanding that the corresponding amounts shall be reimbursed [to them] by […] the State if the Court so decides in its judgment in this case.” 8. In its answer, the State “objected to [the] outlays [from the Fund] to cover the participation of Mckenson Jean, Marlene Mesidor, Antonio Sesión and Ana Lidia Sesión in these proceedings, in their capacity as alleged victims, and with regard to Mr. Cristóbal Rodríguez Gómez, in his capacity as an expert witness, given that it has challenged their characterization as such and requested their exclusion from the processing of this case.” 9. The President confirms that the request for access to the Court’s Legal Assistance Fund was submitted at the appropriate time, in the brief of pleadings and motions (supra Having Seen paragraph 2). Likewise, he notes that on that occasion the representatives indicated that the alleged victims were advising the Court that they wished to have access to the Fund. The President reiterates that the alleged victims are the ones who should 3