6. Requests of the Inter-American Commission. Based on the foregoing, the Commission asked the Court to declare the violation of Articles 3 (Right to Juridical Personality), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), 17 (Rights of the Family), 19 (Rights of the Child), 20 (Right to Nationality), 21 (Right to Property), 22(1), 22(5) and 22(9) (Freedom of Movement and Residence), 24 (Right to Equal Protection), and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of this instrument. In addition, the Commission asked the Court to order the State to adopt specific measures of reparation. II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 7. Notification of the State and the representatives. The Commission’s submission of the case was notified to the State and to the representatives on August 28, 2012. 8. Brief with motions, arguments and evidence. On October 30, 2012, MUDHA, the Human Rights Clinic, GARR and CEJIL (hereinafter “the representatives”) 12 presented their brief with motions, arguments and evidence (hereinafter “motions and arguments brief”) to the Court, under Articles 25 and 40 of the Rules of Procedure. The representatives agreed in substance with the Commission’s arguments, and asked the Court to declare the international responsibility of the State for the violation of the same articles alleged by the Commission and also asked that the Court declare the violation of Articles 11 (Right to Privacy), 18 (Right to a Name) and 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) of the American Convention. Lastly, they asked the Court to order the State to adopt diverse measures of reparation and to reimburse certain costs and expenses. In addition, they asked for access to the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter also “the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund,” “the Assistance Fund” or “the Fund”) “to cover some specific expenses related to the production of evidence during the proceedings before the Court.” 9. The State’s answering brief. On February 10, 2013, the State presented to the Court its brief filing preliminary objections, answering the submission of the case and with observations on the motions and arguments brief (hereinafter “the answering brief”). The State raised the following preliminary objections: (a) “Inadmissibility [of the case] owing to failure to exhaust domestic remedies”; (b) “Partial inadmissibility of the case owing to lack of competence ratione temporis to examine part of the factual framework [of the case],” and (c) “Partial inadmissibility [of the case] ratione personae in relation to the members of the Jean family.” Furthermore, it referred to two “preliminary issues,” which it did not submit as preliminary objections, namely: (a) “some petitioners not qualified to be considered presumed victims in this case,” and (b) “the acts alleged by the representatives that were not substantiated by the Commission within its factual framework.” In this brief, the State, inter alia, referred to the representatives’ request to access the Assistance Fund. On October 1, 2012, the State advised that it had appointed Néstor Cerón Suero as Agent, and Santo Miguel Román as Deputy Agent, and had also designated four legal advisers: José Marcos Iglesias Iñigo, Gina Salime Frías Pichardo, Marino Vinicio Castillo Hernández and José Casado-Liberato. 12 In the communication of August 21, 2012, they advised the Court that the said organizations would act before the Court “as representatives in the said case” of the “Medina Ferreras, Jean Mesidor, Sensión Nolasco, Fils-Aimé, Gelin and Pérez Charles” families. They added that they had “lost contact with Andrea Alezy for several years, and this prevented them from presenting a document accrediting that they represented her, so that they [would] not submit arguments with regard to her.” They indicated that CEJIL was the common intervener. 8