undue restriction of their condition as subjects of international human rights law. Nevertheless, the Court’s case law requires that the said allegations must be based on the factual framework established in the Merits Report.13 Consequently, the Court finds this preliminary objection inadmissible. V PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS A. Determination of presumed victims A.1. Arguments of the parties and the Commission 28. The State argued that the Court had established that it was an obligation of the Commission to identify the presumed victims and that this should be done in the Merits Report; accordingly, it was not possible to include other presumed victims at a later stage. In its Merits Report, the Commission had only recognized Julio Casa Nina as a presumed victim. However, other individuals were included in the pleadings and motions brief – Mr. Casa Nina’s wife and daughters – although, based on the Court’s case law, they could not be considered as such and there were no grounds for the exception established in Article 35(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. It asked the Court to declare that it was not possible to include presumed victims other than Mr. Casa Nina. 29. The representative argued that reparation for human rights violations should be integral and should therefore encompass the members of the victim’s family; to this end, it was necessary to take into account different international standards concerning the rights of victims to obtain reparations. The Commission did not comment in this regard. A.2. Considerations of the Court 30. The Court recalls that, pursuant to Article 35(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the case is submitted to its jurisdiction by the presentation of the Merits Report, which must contain the identification of the presumed victims. Consequently, it is for the Commission to identity the presumed victims precisely and at the opportune procedural moment,14 save in the exceptional circumstances established in Article 35(2) of the said Rules of Procedure, according to which, when it has been justified that it has not been possible to identify one or more presumed victims, in cases of massive or collective violations, the Court will duly decide whether or not to consider them as such, based on the nature of the violation. 15 31. Therefore, in application of the said Article 35(1) of the Rules of Procedure and since none of the exceptions established in Article 35(2) are present, the Court concludes that it is not viable to include other presumed victims than the one identified in the Merits Report: that is, Julio Casa Nina. Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 155, and Case of López et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2019. Series C No. 396, para. 196. 13 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 98, and Case of Olivares Muñoz et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 10, 2020. Series C No. 415, para. 20. 14 Cf. Case of the Río Negro Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 4, 2012. Series C No. 250, para. 48, and Case of Olivares Muñoz et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 20. 15 9