7 documentation as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case. The representatives and the Commission submitted the requested information on September 11 and 14, 2009, respectively. On October 2, 2009 the State submitted its observations on the information presented by the representatives and the Commission as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case. III DETERMINATION OF THE ALLEGED VICTIMS 14. The Court deems it appropriate to determine who must be considered alleged victims in the present case. 15. The Court notes that in paragraph seven of the application, the Commission specified its purpose and identified 155 alleged victims of the case. Likewise, these alleged victims were indicated in the Report on Admissibility and Merits No. 22/08. In this regard, the Commission requested that the Court find and declare the State’s international responsibility for the infringement of the rights enshrined in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1). of that instrument, to the detriment of the two survivors of the massacre and 153 next of kin of the deceased in the massacre. Likewise, in the brief of pleadings and motions the representatives submitted their own list of victims. On the other hand, in said brief the representatives claimed additional alleged violations against those deceased during the massacre (supra para. 3, subsections a), b), c), e), and f)), for which they annexed the names of the deceased and the relationship to their next of kin. In this regard, in the section on background and context on the case, in paragraph 96 of the application, the Commission included a list with the names of the people who died in the massacre. 16. The Court verified that there were certain inconsistencies or differences with regard to the names and characteristics of the persons included in the list of alleged victims submitted by the Commission and that of the representatives; therefore on several occasions they were requested to present information, clarifications, and documentation. Once the information was received it was forwarded to the State, which submitted its observations. With the information and supporting evidence submitted by the parties, the different inconsistencies were clarified or corrected. However, the Court considers it appropriate to refer to the situation regarding Bernabé Cristales Montepeque and María Rebeca García Gómez, as well as the situation of those deceased in the massacre. 17. The Court notes that in paragraph 365 of the application the Commission indicated that “[…] Mr. Bernabé Cristales Montepeque [and] Ms. María Rebeca García Gómez […] have authorized the organizations […] ‘CEJIL’ and [...] ‘FAMDEGUA’, to represent them in the judicial stage of the proceeding before the system;” however, these individuals were not mentioned in the list of alleged victims contained in aforementioned paragraph seven of the application, nor in Article 50 of the Convention. Through the communications of the Secretariat of September 11, 2008 and September 3, 2009, the Commission was informed of this situation, and in the last communication it was requested to make the necessary clarifications. 18. In the communication of September 14, 2009 the Commission indicated that it had transferred the powers of representation of both individuals based on the “requirements contained in the Court’s Rules of Procedure[, however, it added that this] does not constitute a determination of the capacity of these individuals as victims, which the representatives and the Court must declare.” On the other hand, the representatives indicated, in the communication of September 11, 2009, that these individuals “must be considered [alleged] victims of the case and beneficiaries