or rectifying those violations, as appropriate. Thus, in cases such as this one, the alleged victims do not have to exhaust remedies that are exclusively aimed at seeking reparations. 21 30. Accordingly, the Court rejects the preliminary objection regarding the failure to exhaust domestic remedies. V PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATION A. Arguments of the Commission and the parties 31. The Commission, in its Merits Report, found that the only victim was Gonzalo Orlando Cortez Espinoza. The representatives, however, asked the Court to declare that specified relatives 22 of Mr. Cortez also suffered a violation of their right to personal integrity. The State objected to “any claims for reparation” for individuals other than Mr. Cortez, arguing that he is the only alleged victim identified in the Merits Report. B. Considerations of the Court 32. The Court has noted that under Article 35(1) of the Rules of Procedure, it is the Commission’s responsibility to identify specific alleged victims when submitting a case to the Court via a Merits Report. As a general rule, the principle of legal certainty demands that all of the alleged victims be identified in that document. Only under the exceptional circumstances set forth in Article 35(2) of the Rules of Procedure—regarding massive or collective violations of human rights—can other individuals be added as alleged victims. 23 This case does not concern massive or collective violations, and in the Merits Report, the Commission only identified Mr. Cortez as a victim. Accordingly, the Court will consider only Mr. Cortez Espinoza an alleged victim, not his family members. It will therefore not discuss or analyze arguments or claims that concern them. VI EVIDENCE 33. The Court admits documents presented at the appropriate procedural moment by the parties and the Commission (Article 57 of the Rules of Procedure) whose admissibility was not contested or opposed and whose authenticity was not called into question. 24 The Court also finds it appropriate to admit the statements provided at public hearings 25 and by affidavit 26 insofar as they are in keeping with the purpose defined by the President in the Cf. In the same vein, Case of the Massacre of Santo Domingo v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, and reparations. Judgment of November 30, 2012. Series C No. 259, para. 38, and Case of Julien Grisonas Family v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of September 23, 2021. Series C No. 437, para. 40. 22 Those relatives of Mr. Cortez are: his wife Eugenia Magdalena López Gutiérrez and his children Mauricio Bladimir Cortez López, Sandra Priscila Cortez López, and Damaris Eunice Cortez López. 23 Cf. Case of the Massacre of the Village of Los Josefinos v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 3, 2021. Series C No. 442, para. 23, and Case of Maidanik et al. v. Uruguay. Merits and reparations. Judgment of November 15, 2021. Series C No. 444, para. 15. 24 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140, and Case of Habbal et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary objections and merits. Judgment of August 31, 2022. Series C No. 463, para. 26. 25 Statements were received from Gonzalo Orlando Cortez Espinoza and the expert Pablo Geovanny Bermúdez Aguinaga at the public hearing held on March 21, 2022 (supra para. 9). 26 Statements were received from the witnesses Galo Leonardo Guerrero Aguirre and Edie Marco Tulio Almeida Puga, as well as the experts Álvaro Francisco Román Márquez and Lisset del Rocío Coba Mejía. As indicated in the order dated February 14, 2022 (supra para. 9), because the representatives had alleged human rights violations of Mr. Cortez “and his family,” it was appropriate at that procedural stage for Ms. López Gutiérrez, wife of Mr. Cortez, 21 10