52. Finally, during the public hearing convoked on this case and in its final written arguments, the State claimed that Jorge Ferradas Núñez and Rómulo Antonio Retuerto Aranda were included on the list of alleged victims offered by the Commission and are also on the list of victims in Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru, which was resolved by the Court in November 2006. The State, therefore, requested that they be excluded from any analysis since they were part of a controversy already resolved by the Court and, consequently, had been granted reparations. 53. The representatives requested that the Court rectify the list of alleged victims since Rosalía Carrillo Mantilla was erroneously excluded from the list presented by the Commission, even though she was included in the petition of Carlos Benites Cabrera of August 7, 2003. They also stated that they had never requested the inclusion of the family members of the alleged victims. 54. The Commission noted that it had erroneously repeated the names of six persons in the annex to the Merits Report and that it did not include the name of Rosalía Flor Carrillo Mantilla. They, therefore, requested that the record show that there are 187 alleged victims. B. Considerations of the Court 55. The Court notes that the Commission identified 192 alleged victims in its Merits Report. The representatives and the State informed that there were six names repeated,29 which indicates that the true number of alleged victims contained in the Merits Report is 186, which, therefore, in principle, is the total number of victims in this case. 56. On the other hand, the list of 186 alleged victims presented by the Commission erroneously excluded Rosalía Carrillo Mantilla. The Court recalls that, according to its case law and pursuant to Article 50 of the Convention and Article 35(1) of its Rules, the Commission must precisely identify in its Report on the Merits the alleged victims in a case before the Court. Moreover, the exceptions to the Article 35(1) rule are expressly set out in Article 35(2) and neither of them is present here. However, the Court notes that the exclusion of Mrs. Carrillo Mantilla from the Merits Report was due to a material error that prevented her from continuing to participate in the process,30 as the Commission itself has stated. For this reason and since the State was aware of the participation of Mrs. Carrillo Mantilla as a complainant during the proceedings before the Commission, she should be considered an alleged victim, which results in a total of 187 alleged victims. 57. The State also alleged that the persons who received reparations domestically should be excluded, as well as a group of four persons who were included on the list of alleged victims presented by the Commission, but who were not included on the list of dismissed employees. With respect to the former, the Court finds that the value of the reparations awarded domestically is a matter that concerns the merits and eventual reparations and, thus, cannot be resolved as a preliminary question. With respect to the arguments regarding those persons who are not included on the list of dismissed employees and, therefore, should not be considered alleged victims, the Court finds that, in three of the four cases, there are minor inconsistencies between the names reported by the Commission and the names contained on the lists of dismissed employees. Thus, for example, the State indicated that Juana Isabel Peña Rodriguez and Gudiel Máximo Quiñónez Baldeón, included in the annex The persons who were counted twice on the lists of alleged victims presented by the Commission are: (1) Flora Amar Cervelión, (2) Nelson Loayza Bezzolo, (3) Susana Isabel Mantilla Correa, (4) Marcelino Meneses Huayra, (5) Ángel Emilio Saavedra Moreyra, and (6) Luis Sánchez Ortiz. 29 30 Cf. Case of the Dismissed Employees of Petroperú et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 55. 16