5. Notification of the State and the representatives. The Court notified the Commission’s submission of the case to the State on October 28, 2011, and to the two common interveners (CEJIL and FIDH) on October 31, 2011. 6. On December 30, 2011, Ylenia Hartog submitted a request to participate as a third common intervener and that the Court grant a new time limit for presenting a brief with motions, arguments and evidence. The Inter-American Court decided to deny these requests, taking into account the stage of the proceedings at which they were presented: after the notification of the submission of the case to the two designated common interveners, and a day before the expiry of the time frame for the common interveners to present their motions and arguments briefs.10 7. CEJIL brief with motions, arguments and evidence. – On December 30, 2011, CEJIL, common intervener of the representatives of the presumed victims, submitted its brief with motions, arguments and evidence (hereinafter “the CEJIL motions and arguments brief”) to the Court, under Article 40 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. CEJIL agreed in substance with the Commission’s allegations, asked the Court to declare the international responsibility of the State for the alleged violation of the same articles of the American Convention as those indicated by the Inter-American Commission, and added that Chile had also violated the rights contained in Articles 5, 8(1) (obligation to substantiate an accusation), 8(2)(c), 8(2)(d), 8(5) and 17 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, and the contents of Articles 7(1), 7(3), 7(5) in relation to “the principle of innocence [Article 8(2)]” and Articles 1(1) and 2 of the said instrument, to the detriment of Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe. CEJIL also affirmed that the violation of the rights contained in Articles 5 and 17 of the Convention had also been to the detriment of “Mr. Ancalaf Llaupe’s wife,] Karina Prado and his five children,” who the Commission had not included as presumed victims in its Merits Report. Consequently, it asked the Court to order diverse measures of reparation, as well as the payment of costs and expenses. In addition, in this brief, it presented the request of presumed victim Ancalaf Llaupe to access the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund of the Inter-American Court (hereinafter “the Court’s Assistance Fund”). 8. FIDH brief with motions, arguments and evidence. On December 31, 2011, FIDH, common intervener of the representatives of the presumed victims, submitted its brief with motions, arguments and evidence (hereinafter “the FIDH motions and arguments brief”) to the Court. The FIDH agreed, in substance, with the Commission’s allegations, asked the Court to declare the international responsibility of the State for the alleged violation of the same articles of the American Convention as those indicated by the Inter-American Commission, and added that Chile had also violated the rights contained in Articles 5 and 7 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Segundo Aniceto Norín Catrimán, Pascual Huentequeo Pichún Paillalao, Juan Ciriaco Millacheo Licán, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia and José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán. The FIDH also affirmed that the violation of the rights contained in Article 5 had also been to the detriment of the next of kin of the presumed victims, who the Commission had not included in its Merits Report. Consequently, it asked the Court to order diverse measures of reparation, as 10 On December 28, 2011, the presumed victims Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles and Segundo Aniceto Norín Catrimán informed the Court of their decision to substitute the power of representation they had given to the FIDH and presented new powers of attorney in favor of the lawyer, Ylenia Hartog. With regard to the requests made by the lawyer, Ylenia Hartog on December 30, 2011, the Court considered that, based on the principles of procedural promptness and preclusion, it was not appropriate to accept these requests at the stage of the proceedings at which they were presented, because this would have reopened the decision to authorize the participation of more than one common intervener adopted by the Court at the proper procedural moment, and would have also entailed extending the non-extendible time frame established in the Court’s Rules of Procedure for the stage of submission of the briefs with motions, arguments and evidence of the common interveners. The Court recalled, inter alia, the obligation of the two common interveners authorized to intervene in this case to provide the other representatives with information on the status of the proceedings before the Court, and to receive and channel any motions, arguments and evidence that they might wish to forward to the Court. 7