17 proceedings and the date the events occurred, the lack of powers of attorney of their immediate family (children and siblings, respectively) must be more flexible in order to make reparations to victims whose direct relatives were extrajudicially executed or disappeared and in application of the principle of equal treatment before the law. In addition, they argued that the omission of the inclusion of said persons is due to the procedural changes that occurred after litigation of the case began before the inter-American system, in which there was a tradition of listing the next of kin of the victims in the reparations processes and not in the merits of the case. A.2. Considerations of the Court 54. The Court notes that during the proceedings before the Commission, the representatives, in their brief of May 27, 2015, mentioned the next of kin of Noel Emiro Omeara Carrascal, Manuel Guillermo Omeara Miraval, Héctor Álvarez Sánchez, without making reference to Zoila Miraval de Omeara nor José Miguel Omeara Miraval.25 Although these last persons are relatives of Messrs. Omeara Carrascal and Omeara Miraval, they were not identified in the Merits Report. Nor was José Erminso Sepúlveda Saravia mentioned in the Merits Report, nor his next of kin, who were included by the representatives, for the first time, as presumed victims in the proceedings before the Court, in their pleadings and motions brief. 55. In this regard, Article 35(1) of the Court's Rules of Procedure provides that the case will be presented through submission of the Merits Report, which must “identify the alleged victims.” It is therefore up to the Commission to accurately identify the presumed victims in a case before the Court at the due procedural opportunity,26 such that after the Merits Report it is not possible to add new alleged victims, except in the exceptional circumstances considered under Article 35(2) of the Rules of Procedure,27 which are not applicable in this case, since it refers to situations in which it is not possible to “identify one or more of the alleged victims who figure in the facts of the case because it concerns massive or collective violations”. Therefore, in application of Article 35, the content of which is unequivocal, it is the consistent case law of this Court that the alleged victims must be indicated in the Merits Report provided for in Article 50 of the Convention. 56. Based on the foregoing considerations, this Court does not deem it pertinent to deviate from the text of the Rules of Procedure and from the criteria established in its consistent case law. Therefore, the alleged victims are the people who were mentioned by the Commission in the Merits Report (supra footnote reference of page 1), and José Erminso Sepúlveda Saravia and his next of kin cannot be considered as alleged victims, nor can Zoila Miraval de Omeara and José Miguel Omeara Miraval. B. Regarding the incidences of threats and persecution against the Community Action Movement and other alleged facts that generated the violations of the rights contained in Articles 13, 16 and 23 of the Convention, as well as 4 and 5 thereof, to the detriment of José Erminso Sepúlveda B.1. Arguments of the Commission and the parties The representatives’ Brief of May 27, 2015 (file of proceedings before the Commission, page 1535). Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 98, and Case of Coc Max et al. (Xamán Massacre) v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 22, 2018. Series C No. 356, para. 16. 27 Mutatis mutandis, under the previous Rules of the Court, Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 110, and Case V.R.P., V.P.C. et al. v. Nicaragua. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 350, para. 47. 25 26