59 inmates at the Center between August 14, 1996 and July 25, 2001, who represent all the alleged victims identified and named on the list in question. 112. The Court must emphasize that the acceptance of that list to identify the inmates interned at the Center between August 1996 and July 2001, who are the alleged victims in the case, does not imply any decision with regard to the merits and eventual reparations in the instant case. In the sections dealing with the merits, the Court will examine the question of whether the violations of the Articles alleged in the Commission’s application and in the representatives’ brief of pleadings and motions regarding the facts set out in the application, did or did not occur. 113. The Court therefore dismisses the State’s preliminary objection claiming a legal defect in the presentation of the application. * * * SECOND PRELIMINARY OBJECTION Failure to claim violation of Article 26 of the American Convention at the proper stage in the proceedings Pleadings of the State 114. The State’s arguments regarding to its second preliminary objection were as follows: a) based on the principle of equality of arms and the right of defense, and in keeping with the Court’s case law, the Court should allow the exception for failure to claim violation of Article 26 of the American Convention; b) under Article 61 of the American Convention, only the Commission and the States parties determine the subject matter of the litigation; therefore, the representatives’ pleading that the Court consider the alleged violation of Article 26 of the Convention, in relation to Articles XI, XII, XIII and XV of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, should be declared inadmissible; and c) the representatives’ claim regarding the State’s alleged violation of the rights upheld in Article 26 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles XI, XII and XV of the American Declaration, was never the subject of debate or discussion in the case before the Commission. Indeed, no reference is made to any such alleged violation in Report No. 126/01 on Admissibility and Merits. Pleadings of the Commission 115. Regarding this second preliminary objection raised by the State, the InterAmerican Commission pointed out that: a) technically speaking and in the strictest sense of the expression “preliminary objections,” under Article 36 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure such objections may only be filed in the brief answering the application.