-26137. Regarding the argument put forward by the State that the complainants are not from workers of the Municipality of Lima and that there is no identity or link between those entitled to the rights under discussion and the complainants, it is necessary to point out that the Court has established that, under the provisions of Article 44 of the Convention, the complaint may be filed by a person other than the alleged victim8, as well as by a “group of persons.” The Court has further argued that [the] access of the individual to the Inter-American System for the Protection of Human Rights cannot be restricted on the basis of the requirement to have a legal representative. 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.”9 138. Furthermore, it has been proven in the body of evidence that during the processing before the Commission, Peru filed no objection as regards the legal standing of those who filed the complaint. The State even held communications and meetings with representatives of the petitioners for the purpose of reaching a friendly settlement. 139. Based on the foregoing, the Court deems that the complaint has been filed before the Commission in accordance with the provisions of Article 44 of the Convention. 140. On the other hand, as to the representation of the alleged victims before the Court, it is necessary to remember that when the Commission brought the case to the jurisdiction of the Court it attached the powers of attorney of over 800 alleged victims and that most of them did not grant a power of attorney. Such powers were granted to seven different groups of representatives. 141. In such power of attorney granted by the alleged victims the capacity of the grantors, the names of the attorneys —who, in all power of attorney were individual persons— the subject-matter of the power of attorney and the will of the former to be represented by the latter were clearly stated. Though it is true that on the top margin of the powers of attorney granted to Manuel Antonio Condori-Araujo, Wilfredo Castillo-Sabalaga, Celestina Mercedes Aquino-Laurencio, Ana María ZegarraLaos and Guillermo Nicolás Castro-Barcena there is a letterhead which reads “Sindicato de Trabajadores Municipales de Lima” (Lima Municipal Workers Union), such powers of attorney were granted to the above five individuals. 142. Due to the lack of agreement of the various representatives as to the appointment of a common intervener, the Court, pursuant to subparagraph two of Article 23 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, appointed a common intervener for the representatives (composed of Manuel Antonio Condori-Araujo, Wilfredo CastilloSabalaga, Celestina Mercedes Aquino-Laurencio, Ana María Zegarra-Laos and Guillermo Nicolás Castro-Barcena), who was the only representative authorized to take part in the proceeding before the Court. In that regard, the Court made such appointment taking into consideration which group represented the greatest number of alleged victims who had granted a power of attorney. Notwithstanding, the Court stated that it deemed it advisable that all groups of representatives join and submit, 8 9 Cf. Case of YATAMA v. Nicaragua, supra note 6, para. 82. Cf. Case of Castrillo-Petruzzi et.al. v. Peru. Preliminary comments. Judgment of September 4, 1998. Series C No. 41, para. 77.