submitted their brief with pleadings, motions and evidence (hereinafter “pleadings and motions brief”), under Articles 25 and 40 of the Rules of Procedure. The representatives asked the Court to declare that the State was responsible for the violation of:    T he rights of the next of kin of the presumed victims and of the surviving presumed victims of the massacres to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, established in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to failure to comply with the obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, and in Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, and Article 7 of the Convention of Belém Do Pará, owing to the failure to investigate the facts of the massacres because of the application of the Law of General Amnesty for the Consolidation of Peace, and because of the unjustified delay in the investigations; T he rights of the presumed victims of the massacres to personal integrity and to life, contained in Articles 5 and 4 of the American Convention, in relation to the failure to comply with the obligations contained in Article 1(1) thereof, owing to the failure to investigate the grave human rights violations committed in this case; T he right to the truth of the presumed victims of this case, which is protected jointly by Articles 8, 13, and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to the general obligation of Article 1(1) of this instrument, owing to the situation of impunity in which the massacres of El Mozote and nearby places remain;  T he right to personal integrity of the surviving presumed victims of the massacres and the next of kin of the presumed victims who were executed, protected by Article 5 of the American Convention, due to failure to comply with the obligations contained in Article 1(1) of this instrument, owing to the suffering caused by the violations committed in this case;   T he right to property, contained in Article 21 of the American Convention, due to failure to comply with the obligations contained in Article 1(1) of this instrument to the detriment of all the surviving presumed victims of the massacres, and T he rights contained in Articles 11 and 22 of the American Convention, due to failure to comply with the obligations contained in Article 1(1) of this instrument, owing to the displacement of the presumed victims that continued after June 6, 1995. In addition, they asked the Court to order the State to adopt various measures of reparation and to pay costs and expenses. 8. In addition, the presumed victims asked, through their representatives, “that the request for legal assistance in this case be admitted in order to cover some specific costs related to the production of evidence during the proceedings before the Court” since “they d[id] not have the financial resources to undertake these proceedings.” In this regard, in an Order of December 1, 2011,4 the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the President of the Court” or “the President”), in exercise of the powers granted by article 3 of the Rules of the Court for the Operation of the Legal Assistance Fund5 (hereinafter “the Rules of the Legal Assistance Fund”), decided to declare admissible the request filed by the presumed victims, through their representatives, and to grant them the necessary financial assistance for the presentation of a maximum of four statements, and that the specific purpose and destination of 4 See Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador. Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 1, 2011, para. 34. Available at: http://corteidh.or.cr/docs/Merits_victimas/mozote_fv_11.pdf 5 Rules of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights for the Operation of the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund, approved by the Court on February 4, 2010, and in force as of June 1, 2010. 6