16 requested that the Court reaffirm its case law and exclude said persons as presumed victims of the case, who will also not be able to benefit from any type of reparation as part of this case. 49. The Commission stated that neither José Erminso Sepúlveda nor his next of kin were included in Merits Report No. 40/15. However, it considered that, taking into account the particular characteristics of the violations committed in this case, the consideration of the situation of Mr. Sepúlveda Saravia is not limited to his identification as a victim or not, rather the relevant issue is the background information related to said person, which is part of the legal debate in this case for as long as the procedure has been before the Commission. In this regard, and without prejudice to whether or not said person is considered a victim in the case, the Commission reiterated that his situation of risk and the State's knowledge of it is not merely a contextual issue, but rather has a direct causal link with the attribution of State responsibility, for the breach of the duty of respect and of guarantee regarding the fate of Mr. Omeara Carrascal. 50. The representatives stated that the inclusion of Mr. Sepúlveda Saravia and his next of kin as victims in this case is made in accordance with the factual framework presented in the Merits Report. They argued that the fact that the murder of Mr. Sepúlveda Saravia was declared a crime against humanity by the First Delegate Prosecutor before the Superior Court of Bucaramanga on April 21, 2014, should imply knowledge of what happened to said victim by the Court. They added that as of such declaration, the relatives of Mr. Sepúlveda Saravia began to contemplate the possibility of participating in the inter-American system, despite the persistent fears of accusations or negative effects against them, which still exist. A.1.b. Regarding Zoila Miraval de Omeara and José Miguel Omeara Miraval 51. The State requested that Zoila Miraval de Omeara and José Miguel Omeara Miraval be excluded as alleged victims of the case based on: (a) they were extemporaneously included in the brief with pleadings and motions, without offering an explanation to justify their noninclusion before the Commission and its addition at this instance; (b) this case is not characterized as constituting one of the assumptions contained in Article 35(2) of the Rules of Procedure, which would prevent the identification of said persons at the appropriate procedural stage. Therefore, the exception to the identification of the victims in this case is not applicable; (c) that the representatives did not forward a power of attorney granted prior to the death of said persons, since according to the death certificates, Mrs. Zoila Miraval de Omeara died on April 12, 2002, and Mr. José Miguel Omeara Miraval died on August 16, 2005, and (d) that these two persons are not identified in the Merits Report, nor in the submission brief. Consequently, the State asked that this Court “in order to guarantee due process, equality of the parties and legal certainty, [continue] to uphold the rules of the Court according to which the representatives cannot include in their brief with pleadings, motions and evidence, either facts or victims other than those included in the Report issued in accordance with Article 50.” 52. The Commission indicated that Zoila Miraval de Omeara and José Miguel Omeara Miraval were not included in the Merits Report. However, at the public hearing and in its final written observations, it considered it important to mention that the jurisprudential change, insofar as the next of kin should be included in the Merits Report, took place in 2007, under the auspices of a regulatory framework in the Commission that did not require presentation of such information before it. In this sense, for cases such as this one with lengthy proceedings, predating this change in jurisprudence and under a different regulatory regime of the Commission, it considers it pertinent to have some flexibility regarding the incorporation of family members. 53. The representatives argued that Zoila Miraval de Omeara and José Miguel Omeara Miraval died 15 and 12 years ago, respectively, and that, considering the duration of the