2011, four days outside the time frame for forwarding the attachments to the brief with pleadings, motions and evidence. 6. Neither the State nor the Inter-American Commission presented observations on the representatives’ request, or on the evidence justifying it. In this regard, the President recalls that, on February 21, 2011, the Court adopted an order in the proceedings on provisional measures, inter alia, with regard to the attempt on the life of Mr. Caudi Barrios on January 2, 2011. In addition, Mr. Caudi Barrios was a beneficiary of the provisional measures ordered in this case and is a presumed victim in this litigation. 7. The President observes that the representatives had advised the Court of the alleged death of Mr. Caudi Barrios and it appeared to constitute a situation of force majeure in relation to the presentation of evidence under Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure. 7 For its part, the State did not contest this evidence in its answering brief. Consequently, the President exceptionally, admitted the evidence indicated in the fifth considering paragraph supra. 8. The representatives based their request on the lack of financial resources of the members of the Barrios family, presumed victims in this case, “to cover the costs of the litigation before the Court” (supra having seen paragraph 2). In this regard, they attached a statement signed by Eloísa Barrios, in representation of her family, in which she indicates that “she does not have the sums required to send documents and the testimony collected and, especially, to take expert witnesses to the seat of the Court for an eventual public hearing.” In addition, they forwarded the document entitled “Report of the independent public accountant on the review of personal income,” providing information on the monthly income of Eloísa Barrios corresponding to December 2010. 9. The representatives also indicated that “there are a series of expenses that the representatives are able to cover at this stage of the proceedings before the Court, and […] therefore, the [presumed] victims have not included them in their request for assistance from the Fund. This is in the understanding that the corresponding amounts [would be] reimbursed by the State under costs and expenses if the Court should determine this in its judgment in this case.” The said expenses would include “representation expenses [of the representative organizations,] fees; travel of CEJIL lawyers to Venezuela to work on the litigation of the case before the Court and to prepare for the hearing; plane tickets, and accommodation and per diem for three CEJIL lawyers, two COFAVIC lawyers and Luis Aguilera at the place where the hearing is held, and logistic expenses during the preparation and holding of the hearing.” 10. The representatives specified that the presumed victims are requesting help from the Assistance Fund to cover: (i) the travel expenses, including air fare, hotel and per diem for up to nine witnesses and five expert witnesses that the Court may summon to testify during the hearing, and (ii) the expenses to prepare in Venezuela the affidavits with the testimony and expert opinions that the Court finds it pertinent to receive. They stressed that, at this stage of the proceedings, they were not in a position to determine whether all the witnesses and expert witnesses proposed in their pleadings and motions brief would be admitted by 7 Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure establish that: Exceptionally, and having heard the opinion of all those participating in the proceedings, the Court may admit evidence if the party that has offered it adequately explains that the evidence was not presented or offered at the procedural moments established in Articles 35(1), 36(1), 40(2), and 41(1) of these Rules of Procedure due to force majeure or serious impediment. Additionally, the Court may admit evidence that refers to an event which occurred after the procedural moments indicated. 3