7 13. The Commission named 99 persons as victims in its Merits Report (supra para. 1). It stated that it had made their “most precise individualization possible,” but put “on the record” that the names of the persons may not be identical in the different communications or in the judicial record.8 14. The representative identified as a victim Eulalia Antonio, mother of Manuela Mateo Antonio, who was not included in the Report on the Merits. 15. The State claimed that the circumstances of the case of the mother do not fall within the jurisprudential criteria regarding the impossibility to determine alleged victims and, therefore, the exception should not be granted. B. Considerations of the Court 16. Under Article 35(1) of the Rules of the Court, the Merits Report must contain the identification of the alleged victims. Article 35(2), however, provides an exception. The Court has held that the exception operates when there is “a material or practical impediment to identify the alleged victims in cases of massive or collective violations of human rights.”9 In order to determine whether the exception operates, the Court evaluates the specific characteristics of each case.10 17. The Court finds that the incident affected a substantial number of members of the “Aurora 8 de octubre” Community (hereinafter also “the Community”) and that the case concerns a collective violation of human rights. Therefore, given the characteristics of the case, the exception provided by Article 35(2) of the Rules of the Court is applicable. The Court, thus, holds that Mrs. Eulalia Antonio may be considered an alleged victim. A. V. EVIDENCE Admissibility of the documentary evidence 18. The Court received documents attached to their main briefs, presented as evidence by the Commission and by the parties (supra paras. 3, 6 and 7). The Commission requested the incorporation of four expert opinions offered in other proceedings (infra para. 19 and footnote 12) The Court also received from the representative a document requested as useful evidence, pursuant to Article 58 of the Rules (infra para. 19), as well as documentation on a supervening event (infra, para. 22). It likewise received documents attached to the final written arguments (supra para. 9). 19. In this case, as previously, the Court admits those documents that are presented in a timely fashion by the parties and by the Commission or deemed helpful by the Court The Commission pointed out that the events occurred more than 20 years ago and that, while many indigenous persons maintain their original names, upon being registered in the Civil Registry they were given names that are more common in the Spanish language. It indicated that, while persons should be identified in the best way possible, “certain standards of reasonability and flexibility” should be observed. 9 Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 4, 2012. Series C No. 250, para. 48 and Case of the Dismissed Workers of Petroperú et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2017. Series C No. 344, para. 55. 10 Cf. Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, paras. 48 to 51 and Case of the Dismissed Workers of Petroperú et al. v. Peru, supra, paras. 61 and 62. 8