26. The Commission stated during the public hearing that information that had come to light during the case could justify the application of Article 35(2) of the Rules of Procedure as regards the necessary flexibility to individualize the victims and, thus, some victims identified as next of kin in the Merits Report should be considered direct victims. The State did not refer to either of these requests. A.2. Considerations of the Court 27. The Court recalls that, according to its case law and pursuant to Article 50 of the Convention and Article 35(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, it is for the Commission, and not the Court, to identify the presumed victims in a case before the Court precisely and at the proper procedural moment.14 Legal certainty requires, as a general rule, that all the presumed victims are duly identified in the Merits Report, and it is not possible to add new presumed victims during subsequent stages without this prejudicing the defendant State’s right to defend itself.15 The Rules of Procedure establish the exception to this rule in Article 35(2), by stipulating that “[w]hen it has not been possible to identify one or more of the alleged victims who figure in the facts of the case because it concerns massive or collective violations, the Court shall decide whether to consider those individuals as victims.”16 28. The Court recalls that it has evaluated the application of Article 35(2) of the Rules of Procedure on the basis of the particular characteristics of each case, 17 and has applied it in massive or collective cases when difficulties existed to identify or contact all the presumed victims; for example, owing to the presence of an armed conflict or displacement, or when the bodies of the presumed victims have been reduced to ashes, or in cases in which whole families have been disappeared, so that there is no one who can speak for them. The Court has also taken into account difficulties in accessing the area where the facts occurred, the absence of records regarding the inhabitants of the place, and the passage of time, as well as specific characteristics of the presumed victims in the case; for example, when they are members of family clans with similar first and last names, or in the case of migrants. It has also considered the conduct of the State; for example, when it is argued that the failure to investigate contributed to the incomplete identification of the presumed victims, and in one case of slavery. 29. In the instant case, the Court notes that, in its Merits Report, the Commission did not include Roberto Gómez García, L.A.L., María Elena Morales Villafuerte, Heidi Mariela Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 98, and Case of Favela Nova Brasília v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 16, 2017. Series C No. 333, para. 36. 14 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 98, and Case of I.V. v. Bolivia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 30, 2016. Series C No. 329, para. 41. 15 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 Favela Nova Brasília v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 16, 2017. Series C No. 333, para. 36. 16 It should be noted that the Court has applied Article 35(2) of its Rules of Procedure in the following cases, among others: Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 4, 2012. Series C No. 250; Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 24, 2012. Series C No. 251; 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. 252, and Case of the Afrodescendant Communities Displaced from the Río Cacarica Basin (Operation Genesis) v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2013. Series C No. 270. 17 9