established in its answering brief. Indeed, the evidence file contains a forensic medical certificate of the alleged victim’s examination; consequently, the State cannot argue that she has not been identified.17 30. Similarly, the alternate name of Alfredo Bazán y Rosas is an alias that he uses, and could contribute to his identification; accordingly, it should not be considered an obstacle to the alleged victim’s identification. In addition, Alfredo Bazán y Rosas was tried and convicted by the El Alto Second Sentencing Court and that judgment clearly established his date of birth, domicile, parentage, and Electoral Document number.18 Consequently, the State cannot argue that it had no evidence identifying this alleged victim. 31. Regarding the representation of the alleged victims who are absent from the proceedings, the Court notes that, effectively, when submitting the case to the Court, the Commission did not accredit the representation of all the alleged victims. Despite the efforts made by both the Court and the inter-American public defenders, it was not possible to contact alleged victims Edwin Rodríguez Alarcón, Elacio Peña Córdoba, Alfredo Bazán y Rosas (also known as José Miguel Abildo Díaz), Julia Mamanu Mamani, Carlos Enrique Castro Ramírez and Freddy Cáceres Castro. However, these six individuals have been named as alleged victims since the initial petition was lodged before the Commission and appear on the list of alleged victims identified by the Commission in its Merits Report. As it was not possible to contact them, in a Secretariat communication of June 9, 2021, sent on the instructions of the President, a request was made to the AIDEF for them to be represented by the inter-American public defenders who are intervening in this case. The Court considers that, in light of the particularities of the case, the interests of these absent alleged victims have been represented by the inter-American public defenders. B. Inclusion of A.A.D.P. as an alleged victim 32. The Commission, in its Merits Report, identified 26 individuals as victims (supra footnote 16). 33. Representative Jemio Mendoza, in his pleadings and motions brief, included arguments relating to the violation of Articles 19 and 17 of the Convention in the case of A.A.D.P., son of alleged victim María Fernanda Peña Gallardo.19 Moreover, he indicated that “María Fernanda Peña Gallardo’s son was also a victim of the violation of the right protected by Art[icle] 5 of the [Convention], in relation to Art[icles] 19 and 1(1) of this treaty,” and asked that “he should also be declared a beneficiary of the reparations that the Bolivian State is ordered to comply with.” Likewise, among the requests included in his final arguments he expressly asked that “the judgment declare the international responsibility of the Bolivian State for the violation to the detriment of A.A.D.P., son [of] María Fernanda Peña Gallardo, of the rights recognized in Articles 17(1) and 19 of the American Convention, all in relation to the obligations established in Article 1(1) of this instrument.” 34. As previously indicated (supra para. 27), Article 35(1) of the Rules of Procedure stipulates that the case is presented to the Court through the submission of the Commission’s Merits Report, 17 Cf. Forensic medical certificate drawn up by Dr. Eduardo Morales Valda on December 18, 2001 (evidence file, folio 11561). Cf. Judgment delivered by the Second Sentencing Court of El Alto, Bolivia, on May 16, 2003, operative paragraphs (evidence file, folio 600). 18 The representative indicated that “A.A.D.P.” corresponded to the initials of María Fernanda Peña Gallardo’s son and, in his final written arguments, he asked that “to prevent possible repercussions on him,” the Court urge the State and anyone who could become aware of the identity of A.D.D.P., or have access to the documentation in the instant case, to maintain the confidentiality of the identity and name of A.A.D.P. 19 10