January 25, 2012, the Commission forwarded a third list of victims that had been provided by the presumed victims’ representatives in a brief of November 2, 2011, in which they underlined that the list of victims with the Merits report did not correspond to all those who, since March 1997, had been part of the organizational process and subjects of the domestic and international proceedings.27 The names of 512 persons appear on this third list.28 Regarding the differences between the lists, the Commission stressed that, in the instant case, a series of complications and difficulties had arisen that justified precisely the need to adopt flexible criteria to respond to is particularities. 38. Subsequently, in their motions and arguments brief, the representatives presented a fourth list of presumed victims with 531 names. In this brief, they asked that the Court: (a) exclude from the universe of presumed victims those who, by error, had been considered as such without this being so, by the Inter-American Commission;29 (b) recognize as victims, 121 persons who had not been listed in the Merits report prepared by the Commission and who were presumed victims of Operation Genesis and the simultaneous paramilitary incursion, and (c) incorporate the complete list of the next of kin of Marino López who were displaced during Operation Genesis and who, in addition, were ancestral inhabitants of the Cacarica River basin.30 Later, during the public hearing, the representatives indicated that “the universe of victims we are talking about in this case is composed of 531 persons,” and that “[the list] is indeed different from the initial list presented by the Inter-American Commission.”31 They added have been made to what was indicated on the first list of the Merits report. Also, five family members of Marino López appear on this list. Lastly, it should be noted that the name of Marino López does not appear on this list. 27 In this communication, the Commission indicated that the representatives had explained that: (a) some names of presumed victims were “repeated”; (b) there were persons who “were not victims of the displacement caused by the murder of Marino López or the military actions” in Operation Genesis, so that “they should be excluded,” and (c) some presumed victims did not appear on the list, because they had been outside the humanitarian and biodiversity zones when the list was drawn up. The Commission also recalled that the case is particularly complex owing to the context of internal armed conflict in which the events occurred and the internal displacement, and the consequences of these factors. Therefore, it asked that the Courty take into consideration that, in cases such as this one, it is difficult to obtain precise information that allows all the victims of the violations to be individualized, and apply a broad interpretation in the definition of the victims. Accordingly, the Commission asked the Court that, with regard to the persons included by the representatives of the victims in the said brief, it take into account the exception established in Article 35(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. 28 The new list added 79 persons who had been displaced, and who did not appear on the list with the Merits report. Also, 14 family members of Marino López were added. Furthermore, it was indicated that 26 persons were repeated, the representatives had been unable to contact seven, and 12 persons “had not been displaced by Operation Genesis.” Despite these explanations, the Court notes that the numbers presented by the Commission are not consistent with the changes announced in the brief. Lastly, it should be noted that the name of Marino López does not appear on this third list either. 29 The representatives indicated that: (a) 26 persons were repeated on Annex I of the Merits report; (b) the representatives are not in contact with 7 persons mentioned in the Merits report, and (c) 16 persons mentioned in the Merits report were not displaced. 30 The representatives referred to 13 family members of Marino López. However, Marino López does not appear on the list of 531 persons presented by the representatives. 31 In addition, in the motions and arguments brief, the representatives indicated that the Comisión Intereclesial de Justicia y Paz knew of the census prepared by the Social Solidarity Network (RSS) in 1998 and 1999 in which 425 persons were listed. The representatives indicted that, the following persons should be added to that list: (a) 22 persons who have “family ties with the other persons listed on the RSS census, who were not heads of household, but who were victims and whose data were obtained by comparing the birth records”; (b) 10 persons who “were not born on the date that the RSS census was prepared, but who were born while their family unit was displaced”; (c) 47 persons appear on the census conducted by the Social Solidarity Network and the Agrarian Institute in the context of the “Vivir Mejor” rural housing program; (d) three persons who are members of the same family temporarily moved to Bogota, because, in 1997, the head of the family testified before the Special Investigations Office of the Public Prosecution Service and, owing to the danger, remained in this city until very recently. His testimony was mislaid 16 years’ ago, without any effort having been made to clarify this, and (e) 24 persons were displaced in other parts of the country at the time the census was prepared. Accordingly, they concluded that “there is no doubt that the 531 victims represented by the Comisión Intereclesial de Justicia y Paz before the inter-American human rights system has been fully identified by State entities at the moment of the forced displacement and following this. 14