16 represents the [alleged] victims in this case and the formalities relating to the signature of powers of attorney in no way affects their right to a defense.” 76. Arguments of the representatives of the alleged victims The representatives asked the Court to “reject this preliminary objection” and indicated that: (a) The powers of attorney presented by the representatives do not have to comply with the requirements established in domestic laws. Their validity results from the fact that they identify unequivocally the person granting the power, reflect an evident willingness, individualize clearly the entity to which the power is granted, and indicate precisely the purpose of the representation. The powers of attorney granted in this case show clearly the identification of those granting them and individualize clearly the entities to which the powers are granted; (b) “The declarations of the Agent of the State of Nicaragua during the public hearing [...] show conclusively that the State has withdrawn the arguments concerning defects in the powers of attorney submitted”; (c) Powers of attorney do not necessarily have to be presented at one precise moment. The representatives may present the powers of attorney “at any time subsequent to notification of the Commission’s application. […] Until that time, according to Article 33(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, the Inter-American Commission ‘shall be the procedural representative’ of all those [alleged] victims who have not appointed a representative”; (d) Article 44 of the Convention “grants considerable latitude for lodging petitions before the Commission”; (e) There are special circumstances that justify why the representatives have not presented all the powers of attorney; (f) There were difficulties in identifying the candidates elected by the indigenous communities of the Atlantic Coast owing to their oral culture, which explains the absence of written records, and owing to “the obstructive attitude of the Nicaraguan State.” In its answer to the application, the State did not present the official lists of candidates “and, consequently, the representatives of the [alleged] victims [were] unable to individualize them and obtain the respective powers of attorney from each of them”; (g) They have also encountered difficulties in obtaining the powers of attorney of the candidates presented by YATAMA owing to the predominance of the oral culture, problems of access and transport in the Atlantic Autonomous Regions and their high cost for the indigenous people, the considerable number of alleged victims, their cultural differences, and locating them; and (h) When referring to “the duly accredited representatives,” the purpose of Articles 23, 33, 35 and 36 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure is to ensure that the alleged victims or their next of kin, “when legally empowered to present their arguments, requests and evidence, do not lack a proper defense in the proceedings before the Court”.