ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE
INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

MAY 18, 2012
VICTIMS’ LEGAL ASSISTANCE FUND

CASE OF NORÍN CATRIMÁN ET AL. v. CHILE

HAVING SEEN:
1.
The brief of August 7, 2011, the Merits Report No. 176/10 and its attachments, in
which the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American
Commission” or “the Commission”) submitted to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
(hereinafter “the Inter-American Court” or “the Court”) an application against the State of
Chile (hereinafter “Chile” or “the State”). The attachments to the aforementioned brief were
received at the Secretariat of the Court on August 24, 2011.
2.
In this case, the representatives of the eight alleged victims did not reach agreement
over the designation of a common intervenor, for which reason the Court authorized the
appointment of more than one common intervenor, in application of Article 25(2) of the
Court’s Rules of Procedure. 1 The representatives informed the Court that the Center for
Justice and International Law (hereinafter “CEJIL”) and the International Federation for
Human Rights (hereinafter “FIDH”) would act as common intervenors in representation of all
the alleged victims. On October 31, 2011 the aforesaid common intervenors were notified of
the submission of the case. 2
1
2

Rules approved by the Court in its eighty-fifth regular session held on November 16-28, 2009.

On December 28, 2011 the alleged victims Patricia Troncoso Robles and Aniceto Norín Catrimán informed
the Court of their decision to replace the FIDH as their legal representative and presented their new instructions to
be represented by the attorney Ylenia Hartog. On December 30, 2011 Ms. Hartog submitted a request to
participate as a third common intervenor and to be granted a new term to present a brief of pleadings, motions
and evidence. The Inter-American Court decided to deny these requests by the new representative, taking into
account the procedural moment at which were presented, after the submission of the case had been notified to the
two common intervenors designated, and just one day prior to the expiry of the term set for presenting the brief of
pleadings, motions and evidence. The Court considered that, according to the principles of promptness and

Select target paragraph3