4. Inter-American defenders. Following a communication sent to the presumed victims by the Secretariat on the instructions of the President of the Court during the preliminary examination of the submission of the case,3 on March 29, 2012, Rumaldo Pacheco Osco and Fredesvinda Tineo Godos requested that they be provided with “legal assistance under the agreement signed with the Inter-American Association of Public Defenders (AIDEF)” (hereinafter “AIDEF”). Following the respective communications with AIDEF,4 on April 30, 2012, the presumed victims and the defenders were informed of the communication of April 23, 2012, in which AIDEF advised that Roberto Tadeu Vaz Curvo (Brazil) and Gustavo Zapata Baez (Paraguay) had been appointed as inter-American public defenders to exercise the legal representation of the presumed victims in this case (hereinafter “the representatives”).5 5. Notification to the State and to the representatives. The submission of the case was notified to the State and to the representatives on May 8, 2012.6 6. Brief with motions, arguments and evidence. On July 14, 2012, the representatives presented their brief with motions, arguments and evidence (hereinafter “brief with motions and arguments”), in keeping with Articles 25 and 40 of the Rules of Procedure. In addition to being in general agreement with the violations alleged by the Commission following their own assessment, they alleged the violation of the rights to physical integrity and protection of the family, recognized in Articles 5(2) and 17 of the Convention, and of the principle of legality, recognized in Article 9 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, to the detriment of the presumed victims. 7. Answering brief. On October 27, 2012, the State submitted to the Court its brief with preliminary objections, answering the submission of the case, and with observations on the brief with motions and arguments (hereinafter “answer” or “answering brief”). The State contested all the claims presented by the Commission and the representatives and rejected its international responsibility for the alleged violations of the American Convention. In addition, it disputed the reparations requested by the Commission and the representatives and therefore asked the Court to reject them entirely. The State appointed Hugo Montero Lara, Attorney General, and Elizabeth Arismendi Chumacero, Assistant Attorney for the Legal Representation and Defense of the State, as its agents; and Miguel Ángel Estrada Aspiazu, Director General of Human Rights and Environmental Proceedings, Cesar Siles Bazán, President of the National Refugees Council (CONARE), Cosset Estenssoro Torricos, Director General of Immigration, Yvanka Oliden Tapia, 3 On March 23, 2012, the Secretariat advised the presumed victims of the following, inter alia: regarding information on the presumed victims’ representatives and their accreditation, in the brief submitting the case, the Commission “informed the Court that the Pacheco Tineo family has been representing themselves in this case.” Although it was possible to understand that, since they were the presumed victims, their representation was duly accredited in the terms of Article 35(1)(b) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, on the instructions of the President of the Court, they were advised that Article 37 of the Rules of Procedure establishes the concept of the inter-American defender, designed to support and to provide adequate representation to those persons who require legal assistance to process their case before this Court, so that financial reason do not prevent them from having legal representation. Consequently, on the instructions of the President of the Court, they were asked to indicate, by March 29, 2012, at the latest, if they wished to take advantage of this concept to support their participation in the proceedings before the Court. 4 The Secretariat transmitted the said communication of March 29, 2011, to the General Coordinator and the General Secretary of AIDEF and, taking into account the provisions of article 2 of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Court and this association, on the instructions of the President of the Court, asked the General Coordinator of the association, within 10 days, to appoint the defender who would assume the legal representation in the case and also to advise the address to which the pertinent notifications should be sent. 5 In application of the provisions of Article 37 (Inter-American Defender) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, which establishes that “[w]hen the presumed victims lack duly accredited legal representation, the Court may, on its own motion, appoint an inter-American defender to represent them during the processing of the case.” As indicated in the reasons for the amendments to the Court’s the Rules of Procedure, the implementation of the concept of the interAmerican defender “ensures that all presumed victims will have a lawyer to represent their interests before the Court, and financial considerations will no longer impede access to legal representation.” 6 For the effects of the calculation of time limits, the brief submitting the case and its annexes were received by the State and the representatives on May 10 and 16, 2012, respectively. 6