González, who due to her advanced age could not grant a power of representation, but that they were able to do so. Article 35(1) of the Rules provides that a case shall be submitted to the Court through the presentation of the Report on the Merits, which shall “identify the alleged victims.” It is, thus, for the Commission, and not the Court, to identify, precisely and at the proper procedural moment, the alleged victims in a case before the Court. Legal certainty requires, as a general rule, that each of the alleged victims is duly identified in the Report and that newly alleged victims cannot be added, except in the exceptional circumstance set out in Article 35(2) of the Rules, which refers to massive or collective violations. 15. 16. Article 35(2) is not applicable in this case because it does not involve massive or collective violations. The Court, therefore, will not consider as alleged victims nor, where appropriate, as beneficiaries of measures of reparation the following persons indicated by the representative, who were not identified by the Commission in its Merits Report: Emiliano Galván Reyes, Daniel Edgardo González González and Raúl González González. B. Regarding the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man 17. The representative argued, in its brief with pleadings and motions, that “the State had violated the [alleged] victims’ rights, recognized in the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man as well as in the American Convention on Human Rights,” claiming infringements of various articles in both instruments and requesting that the Court declare the violations. 18. The Court has held that its contentious jurisdiction is not based on the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, but rather on the American Convention on Human Rights and other treaties that grant it jurisdiction. 9 It will not, therefore, take into consideration the representative’s arguments regarding the American Declaration. V EVIDENCE A. Admissibility of the documentary evidence 19. The Court received diverse documents presented as evidence by the Commission and the representative, together with their main briefs (supra paras. 3, 6 and 7). As in other cases, the Court admits those documents that have been presented at the proper procedural moment (Article 57 of the Rules) by the parties and by the Commission, the admissibility of which was not disputed nor objected to, nor was their authenticity questioned.10 Cf. Interpretation of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man in the Framework of Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-10/89 of July 14, 1989. Series A No. 10, para. 46 and Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 288, paras. 32 to 38. 9 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140 and Case of the Maya Kaqchikel Indigenous Peoples of Sumpango et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 6, 2021. Series C No. 440, para. 31. Documentary evidence may be presented, in general and under Article 57(2) of the Rules, together with the brief of submission of the case, the briefs with petitions and motions or the answering brief, as appropriate. Evidence presented after these procedural moments is not admissible, save for the exceptions established in Article 57(2) (that is, force 10 8