or beneficial to the other party, based on the principle of estoppel it cannot then assume a contrary position. 23 32. The Court has assessed the declarations made by States during public hearings in the same way as their written statements, and considers that they produce the same legal effects. 24 Guatemala’s withdrawal of the preliminary objection during the public hearing was obviously relevant for determining the application of the estoppel principle as regards the contrary position indicated by the State in its final written arguments. The Court considers that the State’s waiver of the preliminary objection during the public hearing gave rise to a legal effect that both the representatives and the Commission acted upon and, therefore, pursuant to the said principle, Guatemala is precluded from re-filing or “reiterating” this preliminary objection in its final written arguments. Hence, the Court considers that the State withdrew the said preliminary objection and, consequently, it finds it unnecessary to analyze its admissibility. 33. Similarly, the Court recalls that preliminary objections cannot limit, contradict or annul the content of a State’s acknowledgment of responsibility 25 and, especially, an agreement on reparations already reached with the victims. In this regard, the Court points out that the preliminary objection filed of failure to exhaust domestic remedies is incompatible with Guatemala’s partial acknowledgment of responsibility and the reparations agreement already signed by the parties to this case. B) Regarding determination of the presumed victims 34. The Court has established that the presumed victims must be identified in the Merits Report issued by the Commission under Article 50 of the Convention, and in the submission of the case to this Court, pursuant to Article 35(1) of its Rules of Procedure. 26 Furthermore, according to this article, it is for the Commission, and not this Court, to identify the presumed victims in a case before the Court, precisely and at the appropriate procedural moment. 27 Legal certainty requires, as a general rule, that all the presumed victims be duly identified in both documents, and it is not possible to add new victims following the Merits Report, save in the exceptional circumstance described in Article 35(2) of the Court’s Rules 23 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections. Judgment of December 11, 1991. Series C No. 13, para. 29, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 4, 2012. Series C No. 250, para. 25. 24 See, for example, Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Preliminary objections. Judgment of November 23, 2004. Series C No. 118, para. 50, and Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Reparations and costs. Judgment of March 3, 2011. Series C No. 222, para. 91. 25 Cf. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra, para. 26, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, supra, para. 13. 26 This has been the Court’s consistent case law since the Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, paras. 65 to 68, and the Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, paras. 224 and 225. These judgments were adopted by the Court during the same session. In application of the Court’s new Rules of Procedure, this criterion has been ratified since the case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Cf. Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 237, footnote 214. See, also, Case of Furlan and family members v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, para. 277. 27 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 Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits Reparations and costs. Judgment of October 24, 2012. Series C No. 251, para. 29. 13