56 d) the identification of the alleged victims was materially possible, since the Commission could have obtained that information during the friendly settlement process or before the admissibility and merits of the case were considered, given “the very strong cooperation” provided by the State in this case. Neither the Commission nor the claimants requested that information from the State at the proper stage of the proceedings; e) the Commission had access to reference material based on the Court’s June 21, 2002 order, since the Court requested that the State cooperate by providing the requested list. The State sent the requested information to the Commission, “in keeping with its posture of cooperation and its respect for the principle of good faith that governs the international human rights system”; f) facts and evidence must be shown to support the alleged violation of rights. “Evidence is clearly lacking of the individual identities of persons alleged to be victims of concrete facts in the period from August 1996 to July 2001, specifying place, dates, circumstances, victims and alleged perpetrators.” The Commission “has failed to show sufficient proof of how the State violated the rights of the more than three thousand supposed victims, specifically as regards the rights to humane treatment, personal liberty, judicial guarantees, and so on.” The Commission and the representatives have alleged facts and provided evidence of the supposed violation of rights in the case of the alleged victims of the three fires, but they have failed to show proof that all the inmates at the Center were somehow alleged victims; g) were the reparations in genere sought by the Commission granted, the precedent set in the inter-American system would be contrary to the principle that requires victims to be identified and would affect “the legal certainty, reasonableness, and equilibrium” of that system. During the friendly settlement proceeding with the Commission, neither the representatives nor the Commission suggested to the State that all children and adolescents confined in that time frame should be compensated; and h) the proceedings in the instant case should concern only the alleged victims identified under operative paragraph 1 of the Court’s June 21, 2002 order. Pleadings of the Commission 103. The Inter-American Commission asked the Court to declare this first preliminary objection to be inadmissible on the grounds that: a) the discussion of this case when it was before the Commission began on August 14, 1996, and was always about all the children who were inmates at the Center; the case was never confined to the adolescents killed or injured in the fires that occurred on February 11, 2000, February 5, 2001 and July 25, 2001; b) the application was never intended to be an actio popularis with unnamed alleged victims. The entire case with the Commission was conducted on the premise that the alleged victims were identified and that the State had their exact names in its possession;