representation, the Court may, on its own motion, appoint an Inter-American defender to represent them during the processing of the case.”4 5. On April 15, 2011 Mr. Danilo Furlan indicated his “need to be represented” before the Court “by the Inter-American Defender who would be appointed [for him].”5 Consequently, on the same date, the request for legal assistance was forwarded to the Inter-American Association of Public Defenders (hereinafter AIDEF), bearing in mind the provisions contained in the Memorandum of Understanding between the Inter-American Court and said Association.6 On April 25, 2011 AIDEF informed the Court that the Inter-American defenders María Fernanda López Puleio (Argentina) and Andrés Mariño (Uruguay) had been appointed as representatives of the alleged victims (hereinafter “the representatives”) to undertake their legal representation in the instant case. 6. The submission of the case was notified to the State and the representatives on May 23, 2011. On July 26, 2011 the representatives submitted to the Court their written brief containing pleadings, motions and evidence (hereinafter “brief of pleadings and motions”), pursuant to Article 40 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court. The representatives agreed, in general terms, with the violations claimed by the Inter-American Commission, and added the alleged violation of the following Articles of the American Convention: 8(2) (e) (Right to a Fair Trial), 21 (Right to Property) and 26 (Progressive Development of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 (Obligation to Respect Rights and Domestic Legal Effects) to the detriment of Sebastián Furlan and his family.7 The representatives also requested access to the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund of the InterAmerican Court (hereinafter “the Legal Assistance Fund” or “the Fund”) “both for the specific defense in the international proceedings, and for the expenses that [will be] required for the intervention of the Inter-American Defenders.” 7. On October 28, 2011 Argentina filed before the Court its response to the petition and observations to the brief of pleadings and motions (hereinafter “response to petition”). In 4 In this regard, in a Note from the Secretariat, Mr. Danilo Furlan was informed that, following a preliminary evaluation of the briefs presented by him during the processing of his petition before the Inter-American Commission, the President of the Court had deemed it appropriate to ask him whether he was interested in having an Inter-American defender, bearing in mind that, from the briefs included in the file, it could be inferred that Danilo Furlan was not an attorney, and that the attorney who had participated in the filing of remedies in the domestic courts, in principle, had not participated in the defense of the case before the Inter-American System. Cf. Secretariat’s note CDH-S/970 of May 2, 2011, addressed to Mr. Danilo Furlan (File on Merits, volume I, pages 89 and 90). 5 Brief of April 15, 2011 submitted by Mr. Danilo Furlan (File on Merits, volume I, pages 75 and 76). 6 In a Note from the Secretariat, following the instructions of the President of the Court, several inquiries by Mr. Danilo Furlan were addressed concerning the representation that would be exercised by the Inter-American Defenders. The Note explained that although public defenders work for the State when they perform their duties they must ensure respect for the guarantees and application of human rights of the parties they are representing. Similarly, as Inter-American defenders before the Inter-American Court, they must seek to defend the human rights of the alleged victim. It was also indicated that the appointment of a national defender in some cases is related to practical considerations, such as being able to have constant and close communication with the alleged victim and expertise on the domestic law, which in many cases is necessary in order to litigate a case before the Inter-American Court. 7 Specifically, in their brief of pleadings and motions the representatives claimed that the State had violated the following Articles of the American Convention: i) to the detriment of Sebastián Furlan, Articles 1(1), 2, 5(1), 8.1, 8(2.e), 19, 21, 26, 25, 25(1) and 25(2.c) of the Convention; ii) to the detriment of Danilo Furlan, Susana Fernández, Claudio Erwin Furlan and Sabina Eva Furlan, Articles 1(1), 2, 8.1, 19, 21, 25(1) and 25(2.c) and Article, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention, and iii) to the detriment of Diego Germán Furlan and Adrián Nicolás Furlan, Articles 1(1), 2, 8(1), 19, 21, 25(1) and 25 (2.c) and Articles 5(1), in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention. 5