mentioned therein that have been submitted to the consideration of the Court. 37 Supervening facts are the exception to this principle, and may be presented provided that they are linked to the facts of the case. 38 45. The State presented a total of nine supposed facts, described in a comprehensive and detailed manner, which it alleged had not been mentioned in the Merits Report or had not been argued or explained before the Commission, and which appear to be contradictory, incongruent, inconsistent or lacking credibility and factual consistency, with respect to those put forward by the Commission. The Court finds that, while the alleged facts do indeed form part of the factual framework described by the Commission in its Merits Report, 39 the arguments presented by the State are related to a matter of assessment of the evidence and proven facts. Accordingly, the Court will decide on the matter in the relevant Chapters, taking into account the observations of Guatemala. For all the foregoing reasons, the Court considers that the State’s objection is unfounded. C) Determination of the alleged victims C.1. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 46. In accordance with Article 35(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, in its submission brief the Commission named the alleged victims in this case as A.A.; C.A.; D.A., E.A., B.A., F.A., G.A. and H.A.; “[I.A.] and his siblings”, without identifying those siblings; J.A., K.A., L.A., M.A. and N.A. The representatives agreed with the list submitted by the Commission and added the following individuals as alleged victims: O.A., P.A., Q.A., R.A., S.A., T.A., U.A., V.A. and W.A. However, after the public hearing they reported that H.A. and her children, T.A., U.A. and V.A. did not wish to “appear as victims in this case […].” The State considered that the term “relatives” should be understood to mean only Mr. A.A.’s wife and children who lived with him or whose efforts in the search for justice were confirmed by the petitioners and the Commission. As to the grandchildren, it argued that neither the representatives nor the Commission had stated the reasons why they should be considered as victims, nor was there any certainty that they were alive at the time their grandfather died. Moreover, it pointed out that the pleadings and motions brief merely included a list of all the descendants of the presumed victims and the supposed emotional effects they suffered, without proving that these were directly connected with their grandfather’s death and without having their emotional state assessed by an expert in this matter. C.2. Considerations of the Court 47. The Court recalls that the presumed victims must be indicated in the Commission’s Merits Report, pursuant to Article 50 of the Convention. Article 35(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure establishes that that the case must be submitted to the Court through the presentation of said report, which must “identify the presumed victims.” According to this article, it is for the Commission and not this Court to specify the presumed victims in a case before the Court, at the appropriate procedural stage. 40 Legal certainty, as a general rule, demands that all the presumed victims be duly identified in the Merits Report, and it is not possible to add new presumed victims subsequently, except in the circumstances established in Article 35(2) of the Court’s Rules, which do not apply in this case. 48. Accordingly, the Court emphasizes that the representatives must indicate all the presumed victims during the proceedings before the Commission and refrain from doing so following the issue of the Merits Report referred to in Article 50 of the Convention. The reason for this is that, upon issuing said report, the Commission must have all the necessary information to determine the legal and factual aspects of the case, including the 37 Cf. Case of Five Pensioners v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 153, and Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 27. 38 Cf. Case of Five Pensioners v. Peru, supra, para. 154, Case of J. v. Peru, supra, para. 27. 39 See paras. 56 and 57, 62 to 64, 68 and 69, 71 to 74, 80, 86, 171 and 172, 187 and 188, 190, and footnotes 68 and 84 of Merits Report No. 56/12 of the Inter-American Commission. 40 Cf. 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, supra, para. 23. 15