B.2. Observations of the Commission 37. The Commission indicated that the State’s arguments should be considered inadmissible, because they corresponded to an aspect that would be studied when examining the merits of the case. It added that, in this case, Article 35(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure was applicable, because the individuals who were not included in the Admissibility and Merits Report could not be excluded from the Court’s ruling. The Commission indicated that the Court should maintain a degree of flexibility, or order a procedure to obtain the evidence it considered pertinent to identify the greatest number of victims, considering that the lack of complete information on them was due to the nature of the case and the State’s failure to provide documentation and information regarding the respective inspections. 38. Additionally, the Commission affirmed that the lack of a power of attorney could not constitute a sufficient reason for an individual not to be identified and declared a victim in an individual case. Consequently, the Court should determine whether the presumed victims who had not granted a power of attorney were represented reasonably by the actual representatives, including for the subsequent stages of the proceedings. This is because the representatives of the presumed victims had not deliberately or expressly excluded individuals regarding whom they did no have a power of attorney. 39. Lastly, the Commission indicated that the State’s arguments did not constitute a preliminary objection because, according to Article 35(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, the identification of the victims should be made based on the context of the matter, and also by taking the necessary steps to ensure the representation of every possible presumed victim in the inter-American proceedings. B.3. Observations of the representatives 40. The representatives argued that, in view of the complexity of the case, the massive and collective nature of the violations, as well as other contextual factors, it was reasonable to apply the provisions of Article 35(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure in order to make a collective identification of all the presumed victims found in Hacienda Brasil Verde during the 1993, 1996, 1997 and 2000 inspections. 41. They also indicated that they had been able to identify 49 individuals from the 1993 inspection; 78 from the 1996 inspection; 93 from the visit in 1997, and 85 from the inspection in 2000. They indicated that, insofar as possible and despite the difficulties that existed, they had made an effort to individualize with first and last names at least all of those whose documents they had been able to access, without losing sight of the fact that 20 years had passed since the first inspection, which made it difficult to contact them. In addition, the representatives indicated that, in the 2000 inspection, it had been verified that most presumed victims were illiterate, came from rural areas, and were continually on the move seeking a livelihood; also few of them had official identification papers. 42. The representatives also indicated that neither the American Convention nor the Rules of Procedure of the Commission or the Court required the presumed victims to have formal legal representation in the inter-American proceedings. Therefore, there were few formal requirements for access to the protection mechanisms. Moreover, they indicated that the presumed victims might choose to have legal representatives, but were not obliged to do so and, also, in its case law, the Court had established that it was unnecessary to be represented by a specific power of attorney. 43. In addition, they argued that the Court should take into consideration the remote location of Hacienda Brasil Verde and the difficulties of access, the situation of exclusion, 13