6 assumptions of any criminal trial. Furthermore, Mr. Martínez Coronado had three sisters—Luisa Martínez Coronado, Vilma Arias Coronado, and Rosalina Martínez Coronado—who according to the representatives were profoundly affected by the death of their brother. 17. The State did not make any specific arguments concerning the determination of alleged victims. A.2. Considerations of the Court 18. With respect to the identification of the alleged victims, the Court recalls that Article 35(1) of the Court's Rules of Procedure states that cases are to be submitted through the presentation of the Merits Report, which shall include the identification of the alleged victims. It is thus the Commission's responsibility to identify precisely and at the appropriate procedural moment the alleged victims in a case before the Court, 10 except under the exceptional circumstances set forth in Article 35(2) of the Court's Rules of Procedure, pursuant to which, when it has been demonstrably impossible to identify them because the case concerns massive or collective violations, the Court shall decide whether to consider those individuals as victims, depending on the nature of the violation.11 19. None of the objections set forth in Article 35(2) of the Court's Rules of Procedure are presented in this case. Accordingly, based on the rules established in Article 35(1) of the Rules of Procedure and the relevant precedents on which this Court has ruled (infra footnote 10), the Court concludes that Manuel Martínez Coronado is the only alleged victim in this case and it is not appropriate to admit the relatives of Mr. Martínez Coronado as alleged victims. V EVIDENCE A. Admissibility of documentary evidence 20. As in other cases, the Court acknowledges here the probative value of those documents that were presented by the parties and the Commission at the proper procedural moment, were not contested or opposed, and whose authenticity was not questioned 12 (supra paras. 1, 7, and 8). 21. The State asked the Court to reject annexes 18, 20, 32, 35, 37, and 38 presented by the representatives in their pleadings and motions brief, 13 considering them irrelevant for deciding the merits of the case, as “they are not disputed facts related to the merits of this case, and instead of aiding in the determination of the truth, they obstruct it.” This Court notes that because the annexes indicated above were submitted at the appropriate time with the pleadings and motions brief, the documents are part of the body of evidence in this case. The Court will assess their probative 10 Cf. 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. 11 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. 48, and Case of Vereda La Esperanza v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2017. Series C No. 341, para. 32. 12 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140, and Case of Alvarado Espinoza et al. v. Mexico. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2018. Series C No. 370, para. 45. 13 These annexes refer to the following: 18) Erroneous interpretation of the dissuasive effect, El Observador Judicial; 20) Amnesty International, Notice on the death penalty; 32) Amnesty International, Guatemala: The return of the death penalty; 35) Two letters sent by Manuel Martínez Coronado; 37) Amnesty International, The Death Penalty V. Human Rights: Why Abolish the Death Penalty?; and 38) Amnesty International, The Death Penalty – Your Questions Answered.