8 authorized to present pleadings, arguments, and evidence during the proceedings, [and that] they should channel the different claims and arguments of the various representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin in the brief, oral arguments and offerings of evidence.” Regarding the alleged victims that did not result represented or did not have representation, the Tribunal indicated that the Commission “would be their procedural representative as guarantor of public interest under the American Convention, in order to avoid their defenselessness,” in application of Article 33(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court. 41. On October 4, 2005 the Secretariat, prior preliminary examination of the application by the President, pursuant to that stated in Article 35(1)(b) and (e) of the Rules of Procedure, notified it along with its appendixes to the State and to the common intervener of the representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin (hereinafter “the common intervener”). It also informed the state of the terms for its reply and appointment of their representation in the process. Likewise, it informed the common intervener of the term to present her brief of pleadings, motions, and evidence (hereinafter “brief of pleadings and motions”). 42. On October 6, 2005 the common intervener presented a brief, through which she informed that “she had instructed Doctor Vaughan Lowe to make legal representations in a joint manner with the undersigning […],” and requested the adoption of the English language as the work language, along with Spanish. 43. On October 13, 2005 the Secretariat sent a note, through which, following the President’s instructions, it informed the common intervener that the work language for the case would continue to be Spanish. The latter due to the fact that “the language previously employed, from the start of the processing before the Court and without variation, ha[d] been Spanish,” “the language of the responding State […,] the common intervener of the representatives, and the majority of the alleged victims [was] the Spanish language” and “the Tribunal lack[ed] resources to process the case in two languages or translate all the material reunited to a language different to the one that ha[d] been employed up to [that day].” 44. On October 17, 2005 the common intervener presented a brief and its appendixes, through which it requested a one-month extension to present the brief of pleadings and motions (supra para. 41). It also requested that the Tribunal ask the Commission to present the originals of some appendixes and videos of the testimonies recorded, which allegedly had not been forwarded to the Court. 45. On October 27, 2005 the Commission presented a brief and its appendixes, through which, inter alia, it requested that the Tribunal “ask the State […] to forward certified copies of the totality of the documents available related to the investigations developed in the scope of the domestic jurisdiction with regard to the facts, as well as an authenticated copy of the applicable legislation and regulations.” Likewise, it reiterated that “the documents sent [as appendixes to the application] w[ere] the best copy it had and that it has been able to obtain.” 46. On November 2, 2005 the Secretariat, following the President’s instructions, informed the common intervener that the extension requested to present her brief of pleadings and motions (supra para. 44) was not granted since the unpostponable nature of the term to present said brief is expressly established in the Rules of Procedure of the Court.