15 appropriate, the scope of the violations alleged by the Commission or the representatives, as well as the consequences that may arise in terms of reparations. V PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS 44. The Court notes that the State presented three preliminary objections, designated as follows: (a) “lack of jurisdiction of the Court […] with respect to José Erminso Sepúlveda Saravia and his next of kin, as he was not identified in the Article 50 of the [Commission’s] report, pursuant to Article 35(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court”; (b) “lack of jurisdiction over the instances of threats and persecution against the Community Action Movement and other alleged facts generated by the violations of the rights contained in Articles 13, 16 and 23 of the [American Convention], as well as [Articles] 4 and 5 therein, to the detriment of José Erminso Sepúlveda”, and (c) “lack of jurisdiction of the Court […] with respect to Zoila Miraval de Omeara and José Miguel Omeara Miraval, as they were not identified in Article 50 of the [Commission’s] report, pursuant to Article 35(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure.” 45. The Court recalls that preliminary objections are objections that are prior in nature and tend to hinder the analysis of the merits of a matter being questioned, by objecting to the admissibility of a case or the jurisdiction of the Court to hear a particular case or any of its aspects, whether due to the person, matter, time or place; as long as said statements are preliminary in nature.24 46. This Court notes that the State's questions are aimed at determining the alleged victims and determining the factual framework in this case. For this reason, the Court considers that the State's arguments are not considered as a preliminary objections, without prejudice to which the State's proposal is resolved in this section, for which it will rename said arguments as follows. 47. For the sake of procedural economy, the Court will jointly analyze the approach indicated in points (a) and (c), regarding the failure to establish certain presumed victims in the terms of Article 35(1) of the Rules of Procedure, since they examine of allegations of similar nature. A. Regarding José Erminso Sepúlveda Saravia and his next of kin, as well as Zoila Miraval de Omeara and José Miguel Omeara Miraval due to lack of identification in the Article 50 report of the Commission, pursuant to Article 35(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. A.1. Arguments of the Commission and the parties A.1.a. Regarding José Erminso Sepúlveda Saravia and his next of kin 48. The State argued that the representatives extemporaneously included José Erminso Sepúlveda Saravia and six of his next of kin as victims in their pleadings and motions brief, “contrary to the regulations and case law of this Court,” without justifying their exclusion before the Commission and addition at this instance. It added that this case is not part of one of the assumptions contained in Article 35(2) of the Rules of Procedure that could have prevented his identification at the appropriate procedural moment, so this exception does not apply. It 24 Cf. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Preliminary Exceptions. Judgment of February 4, 2000. Series C No. 67, para. 34, and Case of Herzog et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 15, 2018. Series C No. 353, para. 97.