opportunity to resolve the alleged violations in the domestic sphere, and that the Commission should have notified it of the Jean family’s request to be included. 50. The representatives alleged that, based on “consistent case law of the Court since [the judgment of November 20, 2007, in the case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador,” “[t]he opportune procedural moment to identify the [presumed] victims in the proceedings before the Court is the Merits report.” In addition, they noted that “the first mention of [the members of] the Jean family as victims […] was [in the brief dated] January 29, 2002, in an addendum to the initial petition lodged before the Commission.” They also listed various presentations and actions, in the context of the process before the Commission, in which, following the issue of the Admissibility report, reference had been made to the members of the Jean family, or on which the State had not made any relevant observations (infra para. 55). They inferred from this that “[t]he State had 10 years and numerous procedural opportunities to comment on the situation of the Jean family and to present the arguments and evidence to defend itself and, nevertheless, did not do so.” 51. The Commission stated that “the explanation for the inclusion of the Jean family is found in the Merits report” and that “the individualization made in [the report] is consistent with the indications of the Inter-American Court since 2007, to the effect that the persons considered victims must be identified in the merits report of the Commission.” According to the Commission, this “is supported by the fact that the Commission determines the factual basis of the case at the merits stage and not in the admissibility stage, which is based on a prima facie standard of assessment.” In addition, it clarified that: The reference to the friendly settlement procedure does not mean that the merits report accords legal effect to questions debated during the procedure; [but rather] it relates to safeguarding the State’s right of defense […], taking into account that, since 2002, the State was aware that the petitioners considered this family a victim. C.2. Considerations of the Court 52. The Court considers it pertinent to indicate that the Commission did not identify the members of the Jean family in the Admissibility report, even though the representatives had presented “additional information” to the Commission on January 30, 2002, in which they referred to these persons. The omission consisted in: (a) the failure to mention their names expressly, and (b) the absence of any reference to the facts relating to the members of this family. However, in the Merits report, the Commission “concluded that the State […] is responsible for the violation of [certain] rights, […] to the detriment of, [inter alia], Victor Jean, Marlene Mesidor, M[ar]Kenson Jean, Victoria Jean, Miguel Jean, Natalie Jean[,…] Jessica Jean [and] Victor Manuel Jean” and, in its paragraphs 109 to 116, indicated the facts relating to the members of the Jean family. 43 53. Under Article 35(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court and its consistent case law, the presumed victims must be identified in the merits report issued pursuant Article 50 of the Convention. 44 In the instant case, the Commission identified the members of the Jean family in the Merits report and thus complied with this regulatory provision. 43 Thus, the Commission provided information on the composition of the family and the events that occurred in 1998 and on December 1, 2000, which, allegedly, resulted in the expulsion of Victor Jean from Dominican territory and, on the second occasion, the expulsion of the members of his family also. In addition, reference is made to financial losses of Victor Jean and the members of his family and to the safe-conducts granted to the members of this family in March 2002. 44 Cf. Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, para. 65, and Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. 20