19 86. If an application was not admitted for lack of a representative, this would constitute an unwarranted restriction that would deprive the alleged victim of the possibility of access to justice. 87. The modification to Article 33 of the Rules of Procedure adopted by the Court on November 25, 2003 (supra para. 79), which indicates the information that the applications should contain, reaffirms this conclusion. The third paragraph of this Article states that the application should contain “the names and addresses of the representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin” and that: [...] If this information is not provided in the application, the Commission shall act on behalf of the alleged victims and their next of kin in its capacity as guarantor of the public interest under the American Convention on Human Rights to ensure that they have the benefit of legal representation. 88. The Court takes into consideration that the provisions of this third paragraph of Article 33 of the Rules of Procedure concerning the procedural representation that the Commission may exercise, was not in force when the application in this case was lodged, but it has been the consistent practice of the Court for almost ten years. This practice permits establishing that, when the application does not provide any information on the representatives, the Court may hear the case. 89. In the instant case, the Court observes that the Commission provided notarized testimonies of the powers of attorney of 34 of the 109 persons indicated as alleged victims in the application; they show a clear willingness to be represented by officials of CENIDH and CEHIL in the processing of the case before the Court. Moreover, the application indicated the address and other information on these representatives, and provided the powers of attorney of 25 persons who were not on the list of alleged victims. Therefore, the Secretariat, on the instructions of the President, requested the Commission to clarify “whether the 75 alleged victims who ha[d] not granted a power of attorney would also be represented by CENIDH and CEJIL, in which case, they should remit the powers of attorney as soon as possible.” It also indicated that “[i]f this is not so, the Commission should defend the interests of those persons, to ensure that they are represented effectively throughout the proceedings before the Court.” 90. The Commission presented a note on August 12, 2003, advising the Court that “the original petitioners ha[d] informed it that, owing to various difficulties, they ha[d] been unable to obtain all the powers of attorney of the [alleged] victims mentioned in the C[ommission’s] application; however, [CEJIL and CENIDH would] assume the representation of all the [alleged] victims in this case.” 91. On August 22, 2003, the said representatives presented a communication from Brooklin Rivera, the legal representative of YATAMA, addressed to the Court, in which he stated that “[t]he indigenous organization […] YATAMA […] indicates […] that […] CEJIL and […] CENIDH, are the legal representatives of all the YATAMA candidates, in both the North Atlantic Autonomous Region and the South Atlantic Autonomous Region, who were excluded from the municipal elections of November 4, 2000,” and explained that “[t]he powers of attorney of each candidate in favor of CEJIL and CENIDH are still being collected in each of the places of residence of the candidates” and that “[o]wing to the distance and the number of candidates, this task has been difficult, they would therefore present the respective powers of attorney to the Court as they [were] collected.” In their brief with requests and arguments of November 14, 2003, CENIDH and CEJIL indicated that, on various occasions, they had requested the State to provide the official lists of candidates presented by YATAMA for the 2000