submitted at the appropriate procedural stage. Likewise, he notes that the representatives made the request to access the Legal Assistance Fund on behalf of the alleged victims. Indeed, the President reiterates that the alleged victims are the ones who should benefit from the Assistance Fund. 9 5. The request submitted by CEJIL is based on the “precarious social and economic” situation of the alleged victim Víctor Ancalaf Llaupe, who “works in agricultural activities in his community, [… and] most of his work is within the subsistence economy,” to which “are added the difficulties to integrate fully into the Community as a result of the stigma arising from his trial and conviction for terrorist activities.” To support this request, CEJIL also submitted a certificate of “socioeconomic accreditation” issued by the Department of Community Development of the Municipality of Collipulli, Chile regarding the situation of Mr. Ancalaf Llaupe and his family. 10 CEJIL specified that the alleged victim Víctor Ancalaf requested support from the Assistance Fund to cover: (i) the travel expenses “of the persons that the Court may summon to testify at a hearing, including Victor Ancalaf, and the witnesses and expert witnesses that the Court may deem pertinent to hear orally”; (ii) “notary expenses derived from taking the statements of the [alleged] victims, witnesses and expert witnesses that the Court may consider pertinent to receive by affidavit”, and (iii) “[e]xpenses and travel” for the expert report to be prepared by the psychologist Vargas. 6. The petition submitted by FIDH requesting that the alleged victims Pascual Pichún Paillalao and Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia receive assistance to cover “the expenses related to [their] appearance before the C[ourt]” is based on the fact that “they are farmers, Mapuche small-holders, inserted in a subsistence economy and do not have sufficient income to cover their travel [expenses] and accommodation in the place of the trial.” To support this request the FIDH presented the written statements of said alleged victims in relation to their economic resources. 11 Likewise, the FIDH explained that the alleged victims “were represented free of charge, throughout the domestic proceedings […] by lawyers of the Public Criminal Defense Office and, for the purposes of processing the case followed before the Inter-American Commission […] have been represented by lawyers ad honorem, as well as by the FIDH.” Furthermore, it was indicated that “[t]he budget of the FIDH assigned for the litigation of [this] case […] is allocated to finance the participation and intervention in the hearings before the Inter-American Court of [three] lawyers […,] two other alleged victims 12], and two expert witnesses,” and that “[f]or those reasons the FIDH does not have the necessary funds to cover the expenses related to the appearance before the [Court ] of [the alleged victims] Pascual Pichún and Jaime Marileo”. 9 Cf. Case of González Medina et al. v. Dominican Republic. Order of the President of the Court of February 23, 2011, eighth considering paragraph, and Case of Massacres of El Mozote and Surrounding Areas v. El Salvador. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of December 1, 2011, tenth considering paragraph. 10 The certificate signed on January 17, 2012 confirms that the family of Mr. Ancalaf Llaupe is in the “1st most vulnerable quintile of the population” and “is currently included in the […] Social Protection and Solidarity System of Chile.” CEJIL also presented a copy of Mr. Ancalaf’s health card granting him access to health services as a person lacking resources, and provided information on the rates of poverty and indigence that affect the Mapuche People in Chile. 11 In his statement of December 20, 2011 the alleged victim Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia stated that he did “not have sufficient funds to finance [his] trip to the hearings at the Inter-American Court in Costa Rica.” In his statement of January 11, 2012 the alleged victim Pascual Pichún Paillalao stated that he “does not have sufficient funds to travel to Costa Rica to participate in the hearings in this case”. 12 Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia and José Hunechunao Mariñán. 4