55 sense, they considered that the State “ha[d] violated its negative obligation in what refers to the right to life given it presupposes that no individual should be arbitrarily deprived of their life, which is even worse considering that the violation of this right was committed with the intent to cause intimidation to the rest of the Community.” The representatives identified the people murdered as Oscar Brega, Jesús Álvarez Roche, Jorge Castillo Jiménez, and Julio Alberto Morales. 202. The Commission included the murder of these individuals in the chapter on “[p]roven facts” of its Merits Report, but it did not argue the violation to the right to life nor did it make observations regarding the representatives’ argument in this sense. In general terms, in the chapters titled “[r]ight to collective property of the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz and its members” and “[p]rocesses regarding the criminal complaints filed by the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz and its members” of the Merits Report, the Commission referred to the threats and murders of leaders of that Community and considered that “these facts make evident the grave violation of the right to [traditional] property of the Community in this case” and that they “are part of the complex and long fight undertaken for the acknowledgment and defense of the [traditional] Garífuna lands, in which the Community, as a whole, and its leaders and members, considered individually, saw other rights affected, such as the right to life [and] personal integrity.”205 203. The State did not directly make observations regarding this alleged violation even though it referred to the investigation procedures related to those alleged homicides in the chapter on the alleged violation to Articles 8(1) and 25 (infra paras. 215 and following). B. Considerations of the Court 204. The Court recalls its constant case law according to which the possibility to change or vary the legal classification of the facts object of a specific case is permitted within the framework of proceedings before the Inter-American System and that the presumed victims and their representatives may invoke the violation of rights different to the ones included in the application or the Merits Report, provided they abide by the facts contained in said document, because the presumed victims are the holders of all the rights recognized in the Convention.206 205. Additionally, Article 35(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court states that the case will be presented to it through the submission of the Merits Report, which shall include “the identification of the presumed victims.” Thus, it corresponds to the Commission to, at the appropriate time, precisely identify the alleged victims in a case before the Court 207 and it is in reference to the Commission’s observation in its Merits Report regarding the fact that “numerous threats, persecutions, and harassments” had occurred against Community authorities and leaders “resulting in some cases in their death.” However, the representatives did not present arguments in this sense, reason for which this reference will be taken into consideration in the analysis regarding the alleged violation to Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in relation to the claims filed by the Community for these threats. The Commission also referred to this violation of other rights, including the right to life, in its lodging of the case. Additionally, at the public hearing and in its final observations it referred to the fact that the conflict in the area by lack of acknowledgment of the Community’s lands not only put in danger the territory’s integrity, but also the lives and personal safety of the leaders and members of the Community. 205 Cfr. Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 155, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (leaders, members, and activists of the Mapuche indigenous people) v. Chile. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 29, 2014. Series C No. 279, para. 38. 206 Cfr. 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 J. v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 23. 207