to the admissibility of a case or to the jurisdiction of the Court to hear a particular case or any of its aspects, whether by reason of the person, subject matter, time or place, provided that such objections are of a preliminary nature.6 If these issues cannot be considered without first analyzing the merits of a case, they cannot be analyzed through of a preliminary objection.7 18. The Court considers that the pleading presented does not constitute a preliminary objection, since it does not state reasons why the case submitted would be inadmissible or why the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear it. In view of the foregoing, the Court dismisses the preliminary objection filed by the State. V PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS A. Victims in the present case 19. The representatives affirmed in the brief of pleadings and motions that the State was responsible for the autonomous violation of the right to humane treatment of several of Mr. Rodríguez Revolorio, Mr. López Calo and Mr. Archila Pérez family members.8 20. Neither the State nor the Commission submitted observations in this regard. 21. With regard to the identification of the alleged victims, the Court recalls that Article 35(1) of the Court's Rules of Procedure provides that the filling of the case shall be presented to it through the submission of the Merits Report, which must identify the alleged victims. It is therefore incumbent upon the Commission to identify the alleged victims in a case before the Court with precision and within due procedural time,9 except in the exceptional circumstances contemplated in Article 35(2) of the Court's Rules of Procedure, according to which, when it is justified that it has not been possible to identify them, in cases concerning massive or collective violations, the Court shall decide in due course whether to consider them victims in accordance with the nature of the violation.10 22. In the instant case, the Court finds that none of the exceptions provided for in Article 35(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court are met. Consequently, in view of the provisions of Article 35(1) of the Rules of Procedure and the precedents on which this Court has ruled in this regard,11 the Court concludes that only Mr. Rodríguez Revolorio, Mr. López Calo and Mr. Archila Pérez will be Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of February 4, 2000. Series C No. 67, para. 34, and Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of May 14, 2013. Series C No. 260, para. 25. 7 Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 39, and Case of Artavia Murillo et al (In Vitro Fertilization) v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2012. Series C No. 257, para. 40. 8 The representatives referred to Olga Marina Recinos, Manfred G. Rodríguez Recino, Karla Maidé Rodríguez Recinos and Olga Janeth Rodríguez Recinos; Mirian Floridalma Osorio García de López, Jeennley Yannira López Osorio, Alex Fernando López Osorio and Yazmi Lisbeth López Osorio; Irma Morales Morataya de Archila, Sendy Mabelly Archila Morales de Archila, Yoselin Edith Archila Morales, Aníbal Estuardo Archila Morales, Irma Yazmin Archila Morales and Yeremi Yanira Archila González. 9 Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 98, and Case of Omeara Carrascal et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2018. Series C No. 368, para. 55. 10 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 Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 23, 2018. Series C No. 359, para. 27. 11 Case of Omeara Carrascal et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2018. Series C No. 368, paras. 55 and 56, and Case of Martínez Coronado v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 10, 2019. Series C No. 376, para. 19. 6 7