3. The brief of December 30, 2011, in which CEJIL, the common intervenor of the representatives of the alleged victims, submitted its brief with pleadings, motions and evidence (hereinafter the “pleadings and motions brief of CEJIL”), together with a request from the alleged victim Víctor Ancalaf to receive assistance from the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund of the Inter-American Court (hereinafter “the Assistance Fund of the Court” or “Fund”). The alleged victim requested, through said intervenor, assistance to cover: (i) the travel expenses “of the persons that the Court may summon to testify at a hearing, including Victor Ancalaf, and of the witnesses and expert witnesses that the Court may deem pertinent to hear orally”; (ii) “notary expenses arising from the taking of statements of the [alleged] victims, witnesses and expert witnesses that the Court may consider pertinent to receive by affidavit,” and (iii) “travel expenses” for the expert testimony by the psychologist Vargas. 4. The briefs of December 31, 2011, in which the FIDH, common intervenor of the representatives of the alleged victims, submitted its brief with pleadings, motions and evidence (hereinafter the “pleadings and motions brief of the FIDH”), as well as a request on behalf of the alleged victims Pascual Pichún Paillalao and Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia to receive assistance from the Fund. Specifically, they requested assistance to cover “the expenses related to the appearance before the C[ourt]” of the two aforementioned alleged victims. The attachments to said briefs were presented on January 19, 2012, and included written statements by the aforementioned alleged victims regarding their financial situation. 5. The note of January 11, 2012 of the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”), in which, in accordance with Articles 2 and 3 of the Rules for the Operation of the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund of the Court (hereinafter the “Rules of the Assistance Fund”), CEJIL was asked to submit the required evidence regarding the aforementioned alleged victim’s lack of sufficient financial resources to cover the costs of litigation before the Court. 6. The briefs of January 13 and 30, 2012 and their annexes, in which CEJIL presented evidentiary elements in relation to the lack of financial resources of the alleged victim who is requesting assistance from the Fund (supra having seen paragraphs 3 and 5). 7. The notes of the Secretariat of February 20, 2012, in which the briefs with pleadings, motions and evidence, the requests of the alleged victims for assistance from the Fund and the respective documentation were forwarded to the State, to the two common intervenors of the representatives and to the Inter-American Commission. Likewise, the parties and the Commission were informed that these requests would be brought to the attention of the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”), for the relevant purposes. preclusion of the process, it was not appropriate to admit those requests at the procedural stage at which they were submitted, since this would imply revising the decision authorizing the participation of more than one common intervenor, adopted by the Court at the appropriate procedural moment, and would also imply extending a term that is non-extendable under the Rules of Procedure with regard to the presentation of the briefs of pleadings, motions and evidence of the common intervenors. The Court recalled, inter alia, that it is up to the two common intervenors authorized in this case to provide all the rest of the representatives with information on the status of the proceeding before the Court and to receive and convey the pleadings, motions and evidence that they wish to submit before the Court though those common intervenors. 2