18 1. When the application has been admitted, the alleged victims, their next of kin or their duly accredited representatives may submit their pleadings, motions and evidence, autonomously, throughout the proceeding. 2. When, there are several alleged victims, next of kin or duly accredited representatives, they shall designate a common intervenor who shall be the only person authorized to present pleadings, motions and evidence during the proceedings, including the public hearings. 3. In case of disagreement, the Court shall make the appropriate ruling. 82. The individual’s access to the Inter-American system for the protection of human rights cannot be restricted based on the requirement to have a legal representative. The application can be presented by a person other than the alleged victim. The Court has stated that “the formalities that characterize certain branches of domestic law do not apply to international human rights law, whose principal and determining concern is the just and complete protection of those rights.”4 83. Article 33 of the Rules of Procedure in force when the application was lodged indicated that “when this is possible,” the Commission should include the name and address of the alleged victims, their next of kin or their duly accredited representatives. It is understood that the omission of this information does not entail the rejection of the application. Article 35 of the Rules of Procedure established that the application would be notified, inter alia, to “the alleged victim, his next of kin, or his duly accredited representatives, if applicable.” The possibility of the alleged victims or their next of kin not having appointed representatives was therefore envisaged. 84. The scope of the provisions of these Articles of the American Convention and the Rules of Procedure must be interpreted by the Court in accordance with their purpose and object, which is the protection of human rights,5 and according to the principle of the effet util of the norms.6 85. The said Article 23 of the Rules of Procedure, which regulates the participation of the alleged victims in the proceedings before the Court, when the application has been admitted, contains one of the most important regulatory modifications introduced in the Rules of Procedure adopted on November 24, 2000, which entered into force on June 1, 2001. This norm recognizes the right of the alleged victims and their next of kin to participate, autonomously, throughout the proceedings. The previous Rules of Procedure of the Court granted them a more limited legitimacy. The Court could not interpret the said Article 23 of the Rules of Procedure by restricting the rights of the alleged victims and their next of kin and ceasing to hear a case when they do not have a duly accredited representative. Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. Preliminary objections. Judgment of September 4, 1998. Series C No. 41, para. 77. 4 5 Cf. Case of Ricardo Canese. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 178; Case of the 19 Tradesmen. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, para. 173; and Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 100. 6 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters. Preliminary objections. Judgment of November 23, 2004. Series C No. 118, para. 69; Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence, supra note 5, paras. 66, 67 and 100; and Case of Constantine et al. Preliminary objections. Judgment of September 1, 2001. Series C No. 82, para. 74.