evidence (hereinafter “motions and pleadings brief”), pursuant to Articles 25 and 40 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. The representatives agreed with the considerations of the Commission and added that the State was also responsible for violating the right to health in light of Article 26 and in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention. In addition, the representatives asked the Court to order the State to adopt other measures of reparation and to reimburse certain costs and expenses. Lastly, the representatives asked to access the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund of the Inter-American Court (hereinafter “the Legal Assistance Fund”). 7. Answering brief.3 On July 3, 2017, the State presented to the Court its brief filing a preliminary objection and answering the submission of the case and the motions and pleadings brief (hereinafter “answer” or “answering brief”), pursuant to Article 41 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. The State filed a preliminary objection based on failure to exhaust domestic remedies and contested the violations that had been alleged. 8. Legal Assistance Fund. In an order of July 24, 2017, the President of the Court declared that the request for access to the Legal Assistance Fund presented by the representatives was admissible.4 9. Observations on the preliminary objection. On September 20, 2017, the representatives and the Inter-American Commission presented their observations on the preliminary objection filed by the State. 10. Amici curiae. The Court received three amicus curiae briefs presented by: (1) students of the Inter-American Human Rights Protection System Clinic at the Universidad Carlos III of Madrid;5 (2) the Human Rights Clinic of the School of Law and the Dell Medical School at the University of Texas at Austin,6 and (3) the Center for Human Rights Studies at the Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán.7 On February 21, 2017, the State advised that Victor Hugo Godoy Morales and María José Ortiz Samayoa would be its Agents. Subsequently, in a brief of November 3, 2017, Jorge Luis Borrayo Reyes, President of COPREDEH, advised that, in his absence, Felipe Sánchez González would sign the communications addressed to the Court. 3 Cf. Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala. Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund. Order of July 24, 2017. Available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/cuscul_fv_17.pdf. 4 The brief was signed by Denise Ciraudo, Javier Ruiz and Felipe Sautu. It analyzed the HIV situation in Guatemala and explained that the State had provided little or no medical care to people with HIV. Following an examination of Guatemala’s national and international legal framework, it concluded that the State had failed to comply with its commitments and obligations. The document also included an analysis of the right to life of the victims, to personal integrity of those involved, to personal integrity of their next of kin, and of the right to judicial protection in relation to the application for amparo that had been filed. It concluded that the State was responsible for violating the rights mentioned and proposed that the Court should take into consideration the following measures of reparation: reparation of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, measures to commemorate the deceased victims, measures of non-repetition, and a public act. 5 The brief was signed by Ariel Dulitzky on behalf of the authors. The document emphasized that, based on the rules of interpretation established in the American Convention and in the Vienna Convention, as well as criteria developed by the Court, Article 26 of the Convention protected the economic, social and cultural rights that derive from the OAS Charter, including the right to health, and that these rights are subject to the general obligations to respect and to ensure rights imposed by Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention. The brief differentiated between the right to health and the rights to life and to personal integrity, because the former is a right in itself that also imposes specific obligations. The document provided an overview of HIV and its situation in Guatemala, stressing the importance of implementing public health policies focused on the provision of care. It concluded that Guatemala’s response to the HIV crisis had been belated and well below standards for clinical care, and this had had a direct impact on each victim in this case. 6 The brief was signed by María de los Ángeles Cruz Rosel, Carlos Luis Escoffié Duarte, Jessy Guadalupe Cetz Ceils, Enrique de Jesús Gallegos Madrigal and Andrea Guadalupe Tejero Gamboa. First, the document 7 5