7 (a) the suffering before Mr. Garibaldi’s death and his death, which would constitute the violation of Articles 4 and 5 of the American Convention alleged by the representatives; (b) the supposed errors and omissions in the investigation into the death of Sétimo Garibaldi subsequent to December 10, 1998, facts that would constitute a violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, alleged by the Inter-American Commission and by the representatives, and (c) based on the same acts and omissions in relation to the investigation, the violation of the procedural aspect of Article 4 of the Convention alleged by the representatives. 22. The parties agree that Mr. Garibaldi died on November 27, 1998; in other words, prior to the State’s acceptance of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction. The deprivation of Mr. Garibaldi’s life, which was implemented and occurred instantaneously on that date, falls outside the Court’s competence; consequently, it will not examine the State’s alleged responsibility for this act. The alleged violation of the right to humane treatment owing to Mr. Garibaldi’s alleged suffering before his death falls outside the Court’s competence for the same reason, as well as any other fact prior to the State’s acceptance of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction (infra para. 147). 23. However, the Court is competent to examine the acts and possible omissions related to the investigation into the death of Mr. Garibaldi, which took place during the temporal competence of the Court – in other words, after December 10, 1998 – in light of Articles 8 and 25, in relation to Articles 1(1), 2 and 28 of the Convention. Similarly, the Court also has competence to examine those facts in light of the procedural obligation derived from the obligation to guarantee rights arising from Article 4 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. Brazil did indeed ratify the American Convention in 1992, six years before Mr. Garibaldi’s death. Therefore, as of that date, the State was required to comply with all the obligations arising from the Convention, including the obligation to investigate and, if applicable, punish the deprivation of the right to life, even though the Court would not have competence to prosecute it for alleged violations of this right. Despite the foregoing, the Court can examine and rule on possible non-compliance with the Convention obligation concerning the acts and supposed omissions relating to the investigation as of December 10, 1998, when the State accepted the Court’s contentious jurisdiction. 24. Nevertheless, even though the Court has temporal competence in the terms set forth above, in keeping with the Court’s case law, the alleged victims must be indicated in the application and in the Commission’s report under Article 50 of the Convention. In addition, according to Article 33(1) of the Rules of Procedure, it is the Commission, and not the Court, that must identify the alleged victims in a case before the Court precisely and at the appropriate procedural opportunity.14 Taking into account the foregoing, and pursuant to its constant case law, the Court considers as alleged victims those who are indicated as such in the Commission’s application brief. In the instant case, in its Report on Admissibility and Merits No. 13/07, the Commission established the State’s responsibility for the violation of Article 4 of the American Convention to the detriment of Sétimo Garibaldi. However, in the application, the Commission indicated that Mrs. Garibaldi and her six children were the alleged victims of the presumed violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. Therefore, the Court will only refer to the alleged violations that prejudiced the individuals who the Commission named as alleged victims in its application. 25. 14 Based on the above, the Court admits this preliminary objection partially. Cf. The Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006 Series C No. 148, para. 98; Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009 Series C No. 196, para. 27, and Perozo et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 195, para. 50.