11. Observations on the attachments to the final written arguments. – On July 26, 2021, the Commission stated that it did not have any observations on the attachments presented by the parties with their final written arguments. On that same date, the representatives presented their observations on the State’s attachments. The State did not present any observations on the annexes presented by the representatives. 12. 2021.10 The Court deliberated on this Judgment, in a virtual session, on September 20, III JURISDICTION 13. Venezuela became a State Party to the American Convention on August 9, 1977 and recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on June 24, 1981. On September 10, 2012, Venezuela denounced the American Convention, which became effective on September 10, 2013. Pursuant to Article 78(2) of the Convention, the Court has jurisdiction to hear the present case since the facts therein took place before the act of Venezuela took effect. Venezuela deposited its instrument of ratification of the InterAmerican Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture (hereinafter the “Inter-American Torture Convention”) on August 26, 1991. IV PRIOR CONSIDERATION 14. The Court notes that the representatives, in their brief with petitions and motions, alleged the violation of the right to personal integrity of the next of kin of Olimpiades González. In doing so, they did not expressly name those persons, although in the same brief they named several persons who were not mentioned in the Merits Report, who they considered should be viewed as “indirect victims” and beneficiaries of the measures of reparation. Those persons are Arianny Yosibel González, Laura Joselin González, Alejandro González, Fernando González (brother of Olimpiades), Doménica Del Carmen Hernández, Yelimar Coromoto Barliza Hernández, Wilder Thomas Castillo Hernández and Dan William Barliza. 15. Pursuant to Article 35(1) of the Rules and to the Court’s consistent case law, the alleged victims must be identified in the Merits Report issued pursuant to Article 50 of the Convention.11 On some occasions, under the terms of Article 35(2) of the Rules, the Court has admitted, as victims, individuals not included in that Report because of the impossibility of identifying them due to massive or collective violations. 12 The facts in this case do not meet the characteristics defined in Article 35(2) and, therefore, the Court will consider only those persons identified in the Merits Report as alleged victims. Due to the exceptional circumstances caused by the pandemic, this Judgment was deliberated and adopted during the Court’s 144th Regular Session, which was held virtually using technological means, in accordance with the Rules of the Court. 10 Cf. Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 237, footnote 214 and Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2021. Series C No. 434, para. 31. 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 Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador, para. 31. 12 6