American Commission that the acting President of the Court for this case had been informed of this request. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. On November 25, 2006, the Court delivered the Judgment on merits, reparations and costs in the case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, which is therefore at the stage of monitoring compliance with judgment. 2. The Court decided to convene the parties and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to a private hearing on monitoring compliance with the Judgment, which was held at the seat of the Court on August 19, 2013. The purpose of this hearing was to receive detailed and updated information from the State on compliance with the measures of reparation ordered in the Judgment and to hear the observations of the two common interveners of the representatives of the victims and the opinion of the Inter-American Commission (supra having seen paragraph 3). 3. On August 5, 2013, Douglass Cassel, common intervener of the representatives, presented a request for support from the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund to cover “the reasonable and necessary transportation, accommodation and subsistence expenses so [that the victim Sebastián Chávez Sifuentes may] attend the hearing on August 19” (supra having seen paragraph 3). Mr. Cassel also explained that he himself was “covering the expenses of [the] three lawyers who [would be travelling] from the United States to attend the hearing,” but neither he nor the other two lawyers participate directly in the efforts made in the domestic sphere to achieve compliance with the Judgment. He stressed that Mr. Chávez Sifuentes was the main collaborator for the actions taken in Peru and for direct communication with the victims. Mr. Cassel stated that, for this reason, he considered that the “presence [of Mr. Chávez Sifuentes] at the hearing would be extremely useful to ensure that the Court has the most complete information as regards the purpose of the hearing.” 4. In 2008, the General Assembly of the Organization of American States (hereinafter “the OAS”) created the Legal Assistance Fund of the Inter-American Human Rights System (hereinafter “Assistance Fund of the Inter-American System”), in order to “facilitate access to the inter-American human rights system by persons who currently lack the resources needed to bring their cases before the system.” 1 According to the provisions of the Rules of Procedure adopted by the OAS Permanent Council in November 2009, 2 the Assistance Fund of the Inter-American System has two separate accounts: one corresponding to the Inter-American Commission and the other to the Inter-American Court. 3 Regarding the financing of the Assistance Fund of the Inter-American System, currently this depends on “[v]oluntary capital 1 AG/RES. 2426 (XXXVIII-O/08), Resolution adopted by the thirty-eighth General Assembly of the OAS, during the fourth plenary session, held on June 3, 2008, “Creation of the Legal Assistance Fund of the Inter-American Human Rights System,” operative paragraph 2(a) and (b), and CP/RES. 963 (1728/09), Resolution adopted by the OAS Permanent Council on November 11, 2009, “Rules of Procedure for the Legal Assistance Fund of the Inter-American Human Rights System,” article 1(1). 2 Cf. Resolution CP/RES. 963 (1728/09), supra note 1, article 3(1). 3 Pursuant to article 4 of the Permanent Council’s Rules of Procedure for the Operation of the Assistance Fund of the Inter-American System, it is for the Court to regulate the eligibility requirements to request assistance, as well as the procedure for approving this. 2

Select target paragraph3