summon to testify at a hearing; (ii) notarial expenses for the formalization of the affidavits that the Court may consider admissible, and (iii) expenses and travel costs incurred in preparing the expert reports, “for those cases in which the expert witnesses need to travel to El Salvador or travel internally within that country.” The representatives emphasized that, at this stage of the proceedings, they were not in a position to determine whether all the witnesses and expert witnesses proposed in their brief of pleadings and motions would be admitted by the Court or, if admitted, whether they would be summoned to testify in person before it or before a notary public. Likewise they pointed out that they did not know where the Court might decide to hold the future hearing in this case, for which reason “the travel expenses could vary considerably.” In view of the foregoing, they requested that, should Court approve this request, to do so bearing in mind “the testimonies and expert reports that it may decide to admit in its Decision.” 9. Finally, the representatives presented an estimate of the expenses to be covered by the Fund for the appearance of the deponents at a future public hearing and for the production of evidence, including sworn statements and the expert reports offered. For the first item, the representatives estimated a total of fifteen declarants, including eleven alleged victims and witnesses, as well as four expert witnesses, for a total of approximately US$ 21,875.00 (twenty-one thousand, eight hundred and seventy-five dollars of the United States of America). For the second item, the representatives calculated US$ 100.00 (one hundred dollars of the United States of America) for each “notarization” and, given that the majority of the relatives of the alleged victims live outside of San Salvador, they added US$ 60.00 (sixty dollars of the United States of America) for the transfer of two lawyers of Tutela Legal to the locations where they would be found. Finally, the representatives specified a cost of US$ 3,060.00 (three thousand and sixty dollars of the United States of America) for the preparation of a psychosocial expert report. This would include at least 12 visits to the hamlet of El Mozote to hold group workshops as well as two workshops in the Canton of Lourdes, which would imply travel and food expenses. 10. First of all, the President confirms that the request for access to the Court’s Assistance Fund had been submitted at the appropriate time, in the brief of pleadings and motions (supra Having Seen paragraph 2). Likewise, he notes that the representatives made the request to access the Legal Assistance Fund on behalf of the alleged victims. Indeed, the President reiterates that the alleged victims are the ones who should benefit from the Assistance Fund9. In this regard, the President takes cognizance of the fact that this case involves numerous alleged victims, although at this stage of the proceeding there is no requirement to make a pronouncement on the identification of the alleged victims in the case before the Court. 11. In this regard, the President takes cognizance of the lack of financial resources claimed by the alleged victims through their representatives and considers that the sworn statement rendered before a notary public, together with other probative evidence submitted, provide sufficient evidence thereof, pursuant to Article 2 of the Rules of the Assistance Fund. 9 Cf. Case González Medina et al. v. the Dominican Republic. Decision of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 23, 2011, Considering paragraph 8, and Case Fornerón and daughter v. Argentina. Decision of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 31, 2011, Considering paragraph 7. 4