identity of those who should be considered as victims, 41 something that did not occur in this case. 42 49. Consequently, in application of Article 35(1) of its Rules of Procedure and its consistent case law, the Court declares that it will only consider the following persons as presumed victims and eventual beneficiaries of any reparations corresponding to Mr. A.A. and his family: C.A.; D.A., E.A., B.A., F.A. and G.A.; I.A., J.A., K.A., L.A., M.A. and N.A. (hereinafter, “family A”), who were the persons identified as such in the Commission’s Merits Report. 43 Furthermore, although H.A. was also included as a presumed victim in the Merits Report, the representatives have advised that she does not wish to “appear as a victim in this case […]” (supra para. 46). Therefore, the Court will not rule on the alleged violations against her. 50. At the same time, the Court notes that the other arguments presented by the State (supra para. 46) concern the assessment of the evidence. Therefore, the Court will rule on this matter in the appropriate Chapters, taking into account the observations of the State. VI EVIDENCE 51. Based on the provisions of Articles 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 57 and 58 of the Rules, and on its case law regarding evidence and its assessment, 44 the Court will examine and assess the documentary evidence submitted by the parties at different stages of the proceedings, including the statements, testimony and expert opinions rendered by affidavit and during the public hearing, as well as the evidence requested by the Court to facilitate adjudication. In doing so, the Court will adhere to the principles of sound judgment, within the corresponding legal framework. 45 52. Regarding the reception of evidence, the Court has established that the proceedings before it are not subject to the same formalities as domestic judicial proceedings, and that evidence may be admitted only after careful attention to the circumstances of the particular case, bearing in mind the limits imposed by respect for legal certainty and procedural balance between the parties. 46 A) Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence 53. The Court received various documents presented as evidence by the Commission and the parties, attached to their main briefs (supra paras. 1, 5 and 6). The Commission and the parties also submitted the documents requested by the Court as evidence to facilitate adjudication (supra para. 9). In addition, the Court received the statements, rendered by affidavit, of the expert witness Luis Enrique Eguren Fernández and of the deponent, H. I. summoned for information purposes, both proposed by the representatives, as well as of the witness M.I., proposed by the State. As to the evidence rendered at the public hearing, the Court heard the testimonies of Mrs. B.A., presumed victim offered by the representatives, as well as the testimony of Mr. E.M., offered by the State, and the report of the expert witness Ms. Hina Jilani, proposed by the Commission. 47 Finally, the Court received documents submitted by the representatives, attached to their brief of final written arguments (supra para. 10). 41 Cf. Case of García and Relatives v. Guatemala. Merits Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2012, Series C No. 258, para. 35, and Case of J. v. Peru, supra, para. 24. 42 In their pleadings and motions brief, the representatives added nine individuals as presumed victims, identified as grandchildren of A.A., namely: O.A., P.A., Q.A., R.A., S.A., T.A., U.A., V.A. and W.A. 43 It should be noted that P.A., O.A., Q.A., S.A. and R.A., all siblings of I.A., were not duly identified and named as presumed victims in the Merits Report of the Inter-American Commission. Cf. Birth certificates (Merits file, pages 1684 to 1695). 44 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, paras. 69 to 76, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 29, 2014. Series C No. 279, para. 49. 45 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, supra, para. 38, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and activists of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile, supra, para. 49. 46 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 96, and Case of Gutiérrez and Family v. Argentina, supra, para. 79. 47 The purpose of these statements and expert opinions are established in the Order of the President of December 20, 2013 (supra para. 8). 16