well as the payment of costs and expenses. On the same date, the FIDH also sent a brief in which it presented the request of the presumed victims Pichún Paillalao and Jaime Marileo Saravia to access the Court’s Assistance Fund. 9. Access to the Court’s Legal Assistance Fund. – On May 18, 2012, the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”) issued an Order,11 declaring admissible the requests of three presumed victims to access the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund (supra paragraphs 7 and 8) and took decisions in this regard. 10. Answering brief. On May 25, 2012, Chile submitted to the Court its brief answering the submission of the case, and with observations on the motions and arguments briefs (hereinafter “answering brief”).12 In this brief, it “reject[ed], each and every one of the human rights violations attributed to it in the Commission’s Merits Report and in the briefs with motions, arguments and evidence of the representatives of the presumed victims.” The State appointed Miguel Ángel González Morales, Ambassador of the Republic of Chile to the Republic of Costa Rica, and Juan Francisco Galli Basili as its Agents, and Luis Petit-Laurent Baldrich, Jorge Castro Pereira and Alejandro Rojas Flores as Deputy Agents.13 11. Briefs of supposed “waiver.” On September 13, 2012, the Secretariat advised that the Court had decided “not to accord legal effects” to the briefs received on June 19, 2012, supposedly signed on May 7, 2012, by presumed victims Segundo Aniceto Norín Catrimán and Pascual Huentequeo Pichún Paillalao, in which they supposedly communicated their “waiver of any action related to this case.” Before taking this decision, the Court had received observations from the said presumed victims, their representatives, and the State in which the representatives questioned the validity of the supposed waiver documents and Messrs. Norín Catrimán and Pichún Paillalao stated that they did not wish to waive their status as presumed victims in these proceedings. The Court determined that Messrs. Norín Catrimán and Pichún Paillalao would continue to be considered presumed victims taking into account this ambiguity and according primacy to their last indication of their wishes of July 2012, which allowed it to be affirmed with certainty that it was not their desire to waive their status of presumed victims in these proceedings.14 11 Cf. Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Lonkos, leaders and activists of the Mapuche indigenous people) v. Chile. Order of the President of the Court of May 18, 2012, which can be consulted on the Court’s website at: http://corteidh.or.cr/docs/merits_victimas/norin_fv_12.pdf. 12 Under the provisions of Article 41 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, States have a non-extendible time frame of two months to present the answering brief. However, since the representatives appointed more than one common intervener in this case, the President of the Court decided that, pursuant to Articles 25(2) and 41(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, and in order to safeguard the procedural equality of the parties, Chile had the right to present its answering brief within the non-extendible time frame of three months. 13 Subsequently, in a brief of May 16, 2013, Chile also appointed Hernán Quezada Cabrera as the State’s agent. 14 On July 30 and August 28, 2012, Ylenia Hartog, representative of the presumed victims Segundo Aniceto Norín Catrimán and Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles, presented two briefs in which, inter alia, she asked that she be allowed to participate as a common intervener, “[o]wing to the situation of defenselessness and the change of circumstances” owing to the “supposed waiver that had been presented.” In notes of the Secretariat of September 13, 2012, on the instructions of the Court Ms. Hartog was again advised what the President of the Court had indicated previously; that, pursuant to Article 31(3) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, the decisions of the Court may not be contested in any way and, therefore, the Court’s decision, communicated in notes of the Court’s Secretariat of February 20, 2012, in which Ms. Hartog’s request to participate as a third common intervenor in this case was refused, could not be reconsidered. Furthermore, on the instructions of the Court, the Secretariat of the Court advised Ms. Hartog that when the Court had given her the opportunity to present observations on the supposed withdrawal of Mr. Norín Catrimán, this had been done exceptionally, because the Court had considered it pertinent and useful to know her opinion on this specific matter. Consequently, she was reminded that communications addressed to the Court should be forwarded through the common interveners of the representatives of the presumed victims. 8