Medina Ferreras and Lilia Jean Pierre herself” (annexes 13 and 14 to the Merits report), and that Mr. Medina Ferreras indicated that his wife was “Lilia Pérez” and she was 36 years old in 2000, rather than 29 years of age, as can be inferred from Lilia Jean Pierre’s statement. Therefore, “there are strong […] reasons to presume that [the person] who Mr. Medina referred to […] is not [the person] that the Commission presented as a presumed victim.” The State indicated these objections while arguing also that the documents containing the said statements have not been authenticated (infra paras. 121 and 124). Similarly, it affirmed that, in his statement before the Court, Willian Medina Ferreras reiterated that his wife’s name was “Lilia Pérez,” who was Haitian, and that the extract from the birth certificate of Awilda Medina, provided by the representatives on October 6, 2013, indicates that her mother is “Liliana Pérez,” a Dominican national. The State indicated also that Kimberly Medina Ferreras was not named as a victim by either the Commission or the representatives. 63. Regarding Willian Medina Ferreras, the State questioned his identity. Thus, it affirmed that, although it is true that the proof of identity submitted to the Court was a State document, “it is no less true that the State has advised, since 2000, that according to its investigation, this was a case of identity theft” and the investigations had not continued “out of respect” for the Court, in view of the provisional measures that were in force (supra para. 22). Moreover, during the public hearing, the Dominican Republic stated that, according to photographs shown to him at that time, the person identifying himself as Willian Medina Ferreras did not recognize his siblings and, according to a video shown as part of the State’s arguments, supposed members of his family did not recognize him (infra para. 128). It asked that the Court “exclude […] Willia[n] Medina Ferreras […] from the case file, […] because there is a strong probability that he is not the same person as the one referred to by the representatives[. …] Rather, […] the person who appeared at the public hearing […] was really Wilnet Yan, a Haitian national.” At the Court’s request, on March 3, 2014, the State presented information on the measures taken by the Central Electoral Board that also involved Awilda Medina, Luis Ney Medina and Carolina Isabel Medina subsequently (supra para. 20 and infra paras. 140 to 144 and 206 to 208). 48 64. Fils-Aimé family. The State also indicated that while the Commission had named “Juan” Fils-Aimé, who was allegedly born in 1997, as a presumed victim, the representatives referred to “Juana” Fils-Aimé who, according to the power of attorney granted, was born in 1989. Accordingly, according to the State, this is not the same person. As regards Nené Fils-Aimé (hereinafter also “Nené”), it alleged that the representatives had not presented the respective power of attorney. In addition, in its final written arguments, the State indicated that “[a]ccording to the statement of [Janise Midi (hereinafter also “Mrs. Midi”)], Nené Fils-Aim[é] was born in Haiti,” contrary to the assertions of the Commission and the representatives. 49 At that time, the State also requested the “exclusion from the case file” of Marilobi Fils-Aimé (hereinafter also “Marilobi”) and Andren Fils-Aimé (hereinafter also “Andren”), and Carolina Fils-Aimé (hereinafter also “Carolina”) because, according to the State, the statement given by Janise Midi before the Court reveals that the first two were not in the house when the supposed deportation took place, because they no longer lived there, and that Carolina was born after this alleged incident. The case file also contains documentation in which the State asserted that the supposed Dominican identity card of the person indicated in 48 Minutes No. 23-2013 of the Central Electoral Board, “Minutes of the regular meeting of the registrars’ committee held on October 18, 2013” (file of preliminary objections, merits and reparations, fs. 3478 to 3490). 49 The State clarified that the Commission “indicated that ‘[t]he seven oldest children of [Mr.] Fils-Aimé were born in the Dominican Republic,’ which necessarily includes Nené Fils-Aimé, because he is the oldest of them. The representatives of the presumed victims made a similar affirmation.” 23