adopt “flexible criteria, adapted to the circumstances of this case, for the identification of victims and family members,” and recognize the people included on the list attached to their pleadings and motions brief as victims, “leaving open the possibility for anyone identified subsequently to also be considered a beneficiary of the reparations decided in the judgment, as it has on other occasions.” 22. For its part, in the hearing before the Court, the State challenged the list provided by the representatives with their pleadings and motions brief, arguing that it included an “exaggerated” number of people who “have not been documented or credibly determined,” and that there was no “clarity and legal certainty” in this regard. It also indicated that, in its Merits Report, the Commission “had not made a comprehensive effort with regard to identification” and that “[some] people were not identified precisely” on its list. On this point, Guatemala asserted that the consolidated record of victims requested by the representatives already existed and that this was the one established in the friendly settlement agreement signed before the Commission in 2007. Consequently, it contested the request to keep an open list and asked the Court to recognize as victims only those who had been determined in the friendly settlement agreement. In its final written arguments, the State reiterated that the Consolidated Annex of victims provided by the Commission contained a ”disproportionate and unjustified” number of alleged victims, because it did not establish the methodology used to determine these persons and did not include important aspects such as the list with the identity documents, and the relationship between the next of kin and the alleged victims. It added that the Commission had simply based the information on the alleged victims on the information obtained by FAMDEGUA and had not made its own determination based on the facts of the case and the documentation presented. It indicated that the list provided by the Commission contained a series of inconsistencies; for example, the first and last names of some alleged victims did not coincide with their supposed family members and, in some cases, the relationship was not indicated; also, several family groups included people with the same first and last names, without either the representatives or the Commission establishing whether these were homonyms or different persons. 23. Article 35(1) of the Rules of Procedure establishes that the case shall be presented to the Court by submission of the Commission’s merits report, “which shall include the identification of the alleged victims.” According to this article, it corresponds to the Commission and not to this Court to identify the alleged victims in a case before the Court precisely and at the appropriate procedural moment. As a general rule, legal certainty requires that all the alleged victims be duly identified in the merits report, and it is not possible to add new alleged victims following this, subject to the exceptional circumstances provided for in Article 35(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. According to this article “[w]hen it has not been possible to identify one or more of the alleged victims of the facts of the case because it concerns massive or collective violations, the Court shall decide whether to consider those individuals as victims.” In the instant case, the Court finds that the facts affected a substantial number of the members of the village of Los Josefinos and that the case relates to a collective violation of human rights. Therefore, in view of the particularities of the case, the exception established in Article 35(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure is applicable. 24. As on previous occasions,14 the Court considers that, in application of Article 35(2) of the Rules of Procedure, for someone to be considered a victim and receive reparation, they must be reasonably identified. In this regard, the Court recalls that it is not its intention “to bureaucratize the proceedings, but rather, to the contrary, to reconcile the definition determined in the judgment with Cf. Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 4, 2012. Series C No. 250, para. 49, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and neighboring places v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 25, 2012. Series C No. 25, para. 54. 14 9