excused, provided that a suitable balance between justice and legal certainty is preserved. 3 4. The Inter-American Commission’s requests. Based on the foregoing, the Commission asked the Court to declare the international responsibility of the State for the violations indicated in its Merits Report. The Commission also asked the Court to require the State to provide measures of reparation. II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 5. Appointment of inter-American public defenders. Since the presumed victim did not have a duly accredited legal representative, by a Secretariat note of October 24, 2017, Mr. Jenkins was offered the possibility of being represented by inter-American defenders appointed by the Inter-American Association of Public Defenders (hereinafter “AIDEF”), pursuant to the provisions of Article 37 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. On October 31, 2017, Mr. Jenkins agreed to the appointment of interAmerican defenders. In a Secretariat note of November 3, 2017, the AIDEF General Coordinator was asked to appoint an inter-American defender to represent the presumed victim in this case. On November 14, 2017, the Association’s General Coordinator advised the Inter-American Court that two inter-American public defenders had been appointed: Lorena Padován and Octavio Tito Sufán Farías (hereinafter referred to, indistinctly, as “the inter-American public defenders” or “the representatives”). Nilda López Britez was appointed alternate inter-American defender. On November 20, 2017, Mr. Jenkins indicated his disagreement, due to “incompatibility,” with the appointment of Lorena Padován. In a Secretariat note of December 4, 2017, the AIDEF General Coordinator and Mr. Jenkins were advised of the appointment of Nilda López Britez as inter-American defender in substitution of Lorena Padován. 6. Notification of the representatives and the State. The Court notified the Commission’s submission of the case to the representatives of the presumed victims (hereinafter “the representatives”) and the State on December 11, 2017. 7. Brief with pleadings, motions and evidence. On February 10, 2018, the representatives of the presumed victim submitted their brief with pleadings, motions and evidence to the Court. The representatives agreed substantially with the Commission’s allegations and asked the Court to declare that the State was internationally responsible for the violation of the articles that had been alleged by the Commission and, also, the violation of Article 8(2)(h), and of the right to be heard by an impartial court in violation of Article 8(1) and 8(2) in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention. In addition, the presumed victim, through his representatives, asked to access the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund of the Inter-American Court (hereinafter “the Court’s Legal Assistance Fund” or “the Fund”). Lastly, they asked the Court to order the State to adopt various measures of reparation and to reimburse certain costs and expenses. 8. Answering brief. On May 8, 2018, the State submitted to the Court its brief answering the InterAmerican Commission’s Merits Report submitting the case and the representatives’ brief with pleadings, motions and evidence (hereinafter “the answering brief”). In this brief, the State filed four preliminary objections and contested the alleged violations and the claims for measures of reparation. 9. Observations on the preliminary objections. On July 30, 2018, and August 10, 2018, the Commission and the representatives, respectively, presented their observations on the preliminary objections filed by the State. Cf. Case of Cayara v. Peru. Preliminary objections. Judgment of February 3, 1993. Series C No. 14, para. 42, and Case of Mémoli v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 22, 2013. Series C No. 265, para. 41. 3 5