55 99. The Court is admitting the testimony of Mrs. María Zulia Giménez to the extent that it serves the purpose defined by the President in the decision in which he ordered that testimony taken50 (supra para. 42). As it has in other cases, it will assess its content within the body of evidence as a whole, applying the rules governing reasoned judgment arrived at freely and on the basis of admissible evidence.51 100. The Court will, therefore, assess the evidentiary value of the documents, statements and expert opinions submitted in writing or presented in its presence. The evidence presented during the case has been combined into a single body of evidence, to be considered as a whole.52 VI PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 101. The State filed three preliminary objections, which are as follows: legal defect in the filing of the application; a failure to previously claim violation of Article 26 of the American Convention, and litis pendencia. * * * FIRST PRELIMINARY OBJECTION Legal defect in the filing of the application Pleadings of the State 102. In filing this preliminary objection, the State asserted that: a) the Commission erred by filing the application without fulfilling the requirements set forth in Article 33 of the Rules of Court; the litis cannot be engaged unless the alleged victims are named and information confirming their identity is provided; b) in the case of provisional measures, it is sufficient that the beneficiaries be “identifiable” since the merits of the case are not being litigated; c) in its June 21, 2002 order, the Court pointed out that the alleged victims “were properly identified and named in the application that the InterAmerican Commission filed with this Court”; 50 Cf. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 26, para. 54; Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 40, para. 130; and Case of Las Palmeras. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 26, 2002. Series C No. 96, para. 30. 51 Cf. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 26, para. 54; Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 26, para. 65; and Case of Molina Theissen, supra note 26, para. 23. 52 Cf. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 26, para. 66; Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 26, para. 82; and Case of Molina Theissen, supra note 26, para. 36.