cover the costs related to the production of evidence during the processing of the case before the Court. 5. The brief of October 28, 2011, wherein the representatives provided a document with answers and clarifications regarding the evidence previously provided, as well as provided specific annexes and the Spanish version of some documents that were in different languages. 6. The Order of the President of the Court of December 1, 2011, (hereinafter “the Order of the President”), which declared admissible the request of the victims to use the Victim’s Legal Assistance Fund and specified what would be covered by this benefit. 7. The notes of the Secretariat of February 23, 2012, wherein the parties were informed that the answer brief to the brief submitting the case and the brief containing motions and pleadings, filed by the State on February 14, 2012, had been declared inadmissible by the Court as it had not been filed within the period established in Article 41(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court2 (hereinafter also “the Rules of Procedure”). 8. The notes of the Secretariat of April 20, 2012, wherein, following instructions by the President and in conformity with Article 46(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, a request was made for the representatives and the Commission to forward, by no later than May 4, 2012, their respective final lists of proposed declarants (hereinafter “the final list”), and that based on the principle of procedural fairness, that they indicate which of these declarants would render statements or expert reports before a notary public. 9. The briefs of May 4, 2012, wherein the Inter-American Commission, the State and the representatives forwarded, respectively, their final lists. The representatives noted that three of the alleged victims would be able to render statements before a notary public, and that two of the alleged victims and one witness would render their statements during the public hearing. The Commission confirmed the expert evidence previously offered and requested that the three expert witnesses render statements during the public hearing. Moreover, by way of a note from the Secretariat of May 9, 2012, it was noted that the final list submitted by the State would not be admitted nor processed, because the Plenary of the Court determined the inadmissibility of the brief answering the application as it was time-barred. (supra Having Seen clause 7). 10. The notes of the Secretariat of May 9, 2012, wherein it transmitted a final list to the parties and informed them that they had until May 15, 2012, to present any observations deemed pertinent. 11. The brief of May 14, 2012, wherein the Commission reported that it did not have any observations to make. Moreover, neither the representatives nor the State made observations.                                                              2 Rules of Procedure approved by the Court in its LXXXV November 16 to 28, 2009.  2    Regular Period of Sessions held on