6 4. Submission to the Court. On December 8, 2011, and “owing to the need to obtain justice for the [presumed] victims,” the Inter-American Commission submitted this case to the jurisdiction of the Court and attached a copy of Report on Admissibility and Merits No. 67/11. At the same time, it appointed Commissioner José de Jesús Orozco and the Executive Secretary at the time, Santiago A. Canton, as its delegates before the Court, and Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, Deputy Executive Secretary, Tatiana Gos and Daniel Cerqueira as legal advisers. 5. Requests of the Inter-American Commission. Based on the foregoing, the Commission asked the Court to declare the international responsibility of the State for the violations described in its Report on Admissibility and Merits (supra para. 2.b). The Commission also asked the Court to order the State to undertake certain measures of reparation, which are described and analyzed in Chapter IX of this Judgment. 6. Actual situation of the presumed victim. It should be remembered that the presumed victim remains confined in the Women’s Maximum Security Prison of Chorrillos serving a sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment that will end on April 17, 2018 (infra para. 82). II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 7. Notification of the State and the representatives. The submission of the case by the Commission was notified to the State and to the representatives of the presumed victims on March 23, 2012. 8. Brief with motions, arguments and evidence. On May 26, 2012, the representatives of the presumed victims, the Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos (APRODEH) and the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL), submitted their brief with motions, arguments and evidence (hereinafter “motions and arguments brief”) to the Court. The representatives were in substantial agreement with the arguments of the Commission and asked the Court to declare the State’s responsibility for the violation of the same articles alleged by the Commission; however, they also alleged violations of Article 24 of the American Convention to the detriment of Gladys Espinoza. Lastly, the representatives asked that the Court order the State to adopt diverse measures of reparation, and to reimburse certain costs and expenses. 9. Answering brief. On September 28, 2012, the State presented its brief with preliminary objections, answering the submission of the case, and with observations on the motions and arguments brief (hereinafter “answering brief”). With regard to the merits of the case, the State affirmed that it was not responsible for any of the alleged violations. In this brief, it appointed Luis Alberto Huerta Guerrero, Special Supra-national Public Attorney 1 as its Agent for this case and Iván Arturo Bazán Chacón and Mauricio César Arbulú Castrillón, lawyers of the office of the Special Supra-national Public Attorney, as its Deputy Agents. 10. Application for access to the Legal Assistance Fund. In an Order of the acting President of February 21, 2013, the presumed victims’ application, through their representatives, for access to the Court’s Legal Assistance Fund was declared admissible, and the necessary financial assistance was approved for the presentation of a maximum of three statements, either by affidavit or during the public hearing. 2 1 Initially, the State had designated Oscar José Cubas Barrueto as its Agent. However, Peru then appointed Luis Alberto Huerta Guerrero, actual Special Supra-national Public Attorney, as its Agent. 2 Cf. Case of Espinoza Gonzáles et al. v. Peru. Order of the acting President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 21, 2013. Available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/espinoza_fv_13.pdf