6. The State argued that the Court “should not accept” the request of the representatives to use the Victim’s Legal Assistance Fund because, according to the State, the representatives “did not provide any evidence” to establish cause for the request, the representatives of the alleged victims “are sponsored by the Pro Human Rights Association [Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos – APRODEH for its acronym in Spanish], an association that obtains funds from international cooperation” and that “a disproportionate use of the Victim’s Legal Assistance Fund would denaturalize its purpose.” Also, the State noted that it was not clear “from the declarations of [one of the alleged victims and four family members of two of the other victims] that their statements were rendered before a notary public or other official with the power to attest the authenticity of the statements.” 7. First, the Acting President holds that the request for the Assistance Fund of the Court was made in a timely manner in the brief of pleadings and motions, in the name of the Pro Human Rights Association (APRODEH) as representatives of the next-of-kin of Zulema Tarazona Arrieta, Norma Teresa Pérez Chávez and Luis Alberto Bejarano Laura. The President understands that this request was carried out in the name of the alleged victims, exclusively, and takes note of the lack of economic resources, and as evidence of this, considers the sworn statements to be sufficient. 7 They were filed pursuant to Article 2 of the Rules of Procedure of the Assistance Fund of the Court. In this regard, the President notes that it is the victims who should obtain the benefit provided by the Assistance Fund, and thus the lack of economic resources must be demonstrated in regard to them and not their representatives. Therefore, the President considers the State’s argument inadmissible. (supra Considering clause 5). 8. On the other hand, the President recalls that the Assistance Fund of the Court is made up of voluntary donations from cooperating sources, to which these limited resources are insufficient to cover all expenses related to appearance and possible presentation of evidence before the Court by the alleged victims. Given the aforementioned, this Presidency will assess each specific case the request for assistance presented with regard to available funds, taking into account the need for assistance that could arise in other cases before the Court, so as to safeguard the proper administration and fair distribution of these limited resources. 9. The President takes note that, at the current stage of the proceedings, it is not possible to determine which of the testimonies offered by the representatives will be received by the Court, or in what form they will be received. Under Article 50(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, this determination corresponds to the Court or to its President, once the parties have forwarded their final lists of the declarants they propose and the right to defense has been ensured, in the terms of Articles 45 to 49 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. 10. Based on the foregoing considerations, the President finds admissible the presumed victims’ request to use the Court’s Legal Assistance Fund, in the understanding that it will be to cover expenditure relating to the appearance of declarants in a possible public hearing before the Court, as well as the presentation of testimony to the Court. In this regard, based on the resources currently available in the Assistance Fund, the presumed victims will be awarded the necessary financial assistance for the presentation of a maximum of two declarations and one expert opinion, either by affidavit or at the public hearing. In addition, the Acting President finds it appropriate to postpone determination of the specific amount, purpose and object of the financial assistance that will be provided to the presumed victims until such time as this Presidency, or the Court, rules on the admissibility and relevance of the statements of the presumed victims and of the testimonial and expert evidence offered and, as appropriate, on the opening of the oral proceedings, in accordance with Article 50(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, in order to be certain which declarations will be received by the Court, and also the way in which they will be presented. 7 Presented by Victor Tarazona Hinostroza, Lucila Arrieta Villena de Tarazona, Santiago Pérez Vera, Luis Alberto Bejarano and Nieves Emigdia Chavez Rojas. (Annex 31 ESAP) 3