family.” 24. The state argued that at no stage of the proceeding before the Commission was Mr. Gorigoitía's next of kin identified as victims, nor were they recognized as such in the Report on the Merits. Likewise, it highlighted that the Commission reviewed violation of articles 8(2)(h) and 25(1), read in conjunction with articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention, to the detriment of Mr. Gorigoitía, and that no other right was alleged to be violated to the detriment of Mr. Gorigoitía or his next of kin. Therefore, it held that adding new violations would alter the procedural purpose of the case and violate the proper exercise of the state's right to defense. The state thus maintained that any reparation sought for Mr. Gorigoitía's next of kin must be declared inadmissible, along with any evidence intended as demonstrating the alleged damage suffered by them. A.2 Considerations of the Court 25. Regarding the identification of the alleged victims, the Court recalls that Article 35(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court establishes that cases shall be submitted through the presentation of a Report on the Merits, which must identify the alleged victims. It therefore falls to the Commission to identify, precisely and at the proper procedural moment, the alleged victims in a case before the Court,17 except for in the exceptional circumstances provided for under Article 35(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, according to which, when the justification is that it was not possible to identify them because the cases concern massive or collective violations, the Court shall decide whether to consider individuals as victims in accordance with the nature of the violation.18 26. In this case, the Court finds that none of the exceptions provided for in Article 35(2) of the Court's Rules of Procedure apply. Consequently, based on the provisions of Article 35(1) of the Rules of Procedure, and the precedents on which this Court has ruled in this regard, the Court concludes that only Mr. Gorigoitía will be considered as an alleged victim in this case, and his next of kin cannot be admitted as alleged victims. VI EVIDENCE A. Admissibility of the documentary evidence 27. The Court received various documents presented as evidence by the Commission, the representatives and the state, as well as those requested by the Court or its President as helpful evidence and, as in other cases, it admits them in the understanding that they were presented at the appropriate procedural moment19 and their admissibility was not contested or refuted. B. Admission of the testimonial and expert evidence 28. Likewise, the Court deems it pertinent to admit the statements of the alleged victim,20 the expert opinions rendered before notary public in the framework of this case,21 and the expert Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 98, and Case of Martínez Coronado v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 10, 2019. Series C No. 376, para. 18. 18 Cf. Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 4, 2012. Series C No. 250, para. 48, and Case of Martínez Coronado v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 10, 2019. Series C No. 376, para. 18. 19 Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure. 20 During the public hearing, the Court heard the statement of the alleged victim, Oscar Raúl Gorigoitía. 21 The Court received the expert opinions rendered before notary public of Oscar Dimas, Fernando De La Rúa, and Mario Alberto Juliano. 17 8