identified correctly. Therefore, Erasmo de la Barrera Movilla and Florencia Movilla Galarcio are considered alleged victims. 51. Thirdly, on many occasions the Court has used the presumption that certain relatives of direct victims of serious human rights violations are themselves victims as a result of the violations concerned, but as part of the analysis of merits, 32 and not as a preliminary question intended to include or exclude people from the group of alleged victims. Therefore, people may not be denied the status of alleged victims for that reason. 52. Lastly, on the question of people who have died, the Court has held that it is not necessary that a person be alive at the time the case is brought before the Court for them to be considered an alleged victim and, furthermore, it has determined that deceased relatives of victims who were alive at the time of the disappearance were also victims. 33 Therefore, a person may not be denied the status of alleged victim simply because they have died. The Court notes, however, that Pedro Movilla’s father-in-law, José de Jesús Vergara Román, died in 1990, 34 that is, before Mr. Movilla’s disappearance in 1993 (infra para. 76). Therefore, given that he could not have been affected by the facts of the case, he will not be considered an alleged victim. 53. As a result, the Court finds that there are 19 alleged victims in the case, some of whom were already considered victims following the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility. These are all the individuals mentioned in the Merits Report as victims, except for Pedro Movilla’s nonexistent brother called Erasmo Movilla, and Mr. Movilla’s father-in-law, José de Jesús Vergara Román. 54. Those 19 people, with their correct names, are Pedro Julio Movilla Galarcio and the following members of his family: Candelaria Nuris Vergara Carriazo (wife), Carlos Julio Movilla Vergara (son), José Antonio Movilla Vergara (son), Jenny del Carmen Movilla Vergara (daughter), Leonor María Movilla de Sierra (sister), María de Jesús Movilla Barrera (sister), Florencia Movilla Galarcio (sister), Rita Candelaria Movilla Galarcio (sister), Nery del Carmen Movilla Galarcio (sister), Erasmo de la Barrera Movilla (nephew), Raúl Rafael Ramos Movilla (nephew), Ricardo Adolfo Ramos Movilla (nephew), Franklin Hander Movilla (nephew), Dominga Josefa Movilla Galarcio (niece), Iván Darío Vega Movilla (nephew), Nery del Carmen Vega Movilla (niece), Ana Karina Vega Movilla (niece), and María Isabel Carriazo de Román (mother-in-law ). Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, para. 114, and Case of Maidanik et al. v. Uruguay, supra, para. 185. 33 Cf. Case of 19 Merchants v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109., paras. 229, 231 and 235, and Case of Maidanik et al. v. Uruguay, supra, paras. 195 and 196. 34 Cf. Death certificate of José de Jesús Vergara Román, issued on November 1, 1990 (evidence file, Annex 1 to the pleadings and motions brief, f. 2731). 32 15