iii) Presumed victims without power of attorney 32. The State affirmed that the Court had waived the requirement for proof of the formal representation of presumed victims in specific cases, but that this criteria was not applicable in the present matter because the presumed victims had not been executed and there had been no forced disappearances. In addition, based on the facts, it was not possible to distinguish any special characteristics of the group of presumed victims that could justify dispensing with the presentation of proof of the powers of attorney. Moreover, it would not be reasonable to waive the requirement of a power of atorney before the Court, due merely to the existence of a broad universe of presumed victims, because this would lead to legal uncertainty and run counter to the careful and balanced analysis made by the Court in previous cases. iv) Presumed victims unrelated to the facts of the case 33. The State argued that the representatives had presented the powers of attorney of 12 supposed Hacienda Brasil Verde workers,25 but there was no evidence or indication that they had been employed by this hacienda, even though their names appeared in the Admissibility and Merits Report and in the report on the inspection made by the Special Mobile Inspection Group in March 2000. v) Presumed victims with a different identity, or lack of due representation for next of kin 34. The State indicated that doubts and inconsistencies existed regarding the identity of the victims represented, because the representatives had provided incomplete or imprecise information and the identification numbers were contradictory. Furthermore, it asked the representatives to present the death certificates of the presumed victims who were deceased together with proof of the relationship between the supposed next of kin and the deceased presumed victims. vi) Presumed victims who were not mentioned in the Merits Report 35. Lastly, the State indicated that the Court did not have competence to examine the facts relating to presumed victims Francisco das Chagas Bastos Souza, José Francisco Furtado de Sousa, Antônio Pereira dos Santos and Francisco Pereira da Silva, because they had not been mentioned in Admissibility and Merits Report No. 169/11. It also indicated that, regarding José Francisco Furtado de Sousa, there was no reasonable motive to suppose that this was Gonçalo Luiz Furtado, indicated as victim in the Merits Report. 36. The State asked the Court to exercise its jurisdiction only with regard to the 18 presumed victims “duly represented, identified and related” to the facts in Admissibility and Merits Report No. 169/11.26 1. Antônio Bento da Silva; 2. Antônio Francisco da Silva; 3. Carlos Ferreira Lopes; 4. Firmino da Silva; 5. Francisco das Chagas Bastos Souza; 6. Francisco das Chagas Cardoso Carvalho; 7. Francisco Fabiano Leandro; 8. Francisco Ferreira da Silva; 9. Francisco Mariano da Silva; 10. Gonçalo Firmino de Souza; 11. Raimundo Nonato da Silva and 12. Vicentina Maria da Conceição. 25 They are: 1. Alfredo Rodrigues; 2. Antônio Damas Filho; 3. Antônio Fernandes Costa; 4. Antônio Ivaldo Rodrigues da Silva; 5. Carlito Bastos Gonçalves; 6. Erimar Lima da Silva; 7. Francisco das Chagas Diogo; 8. Francisco de Assis Felix; 9. Francisco de Assis Pereira da Silva; 10. Francisco de Sousa Brígido; 11. Francisco Teodoro Diogo; 12. José Leandro da Silva; 13. Luiz Sicinato de Menezes; 14. Marcos Antônio Lima; 15. Pedro Fernandes da Silva; 16. Raimundo de Sousa Leandro; 17. Roberto Alves Nascimento and 18. Rogerio Felix Silva. 26 12