31. In relation to the identification of presumed victims, the Court recalls that Article 35(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure establishes that a case shall be submitted through presentation of the Report on Merits, which shall identify the presumed victims. Therefore, it is up to the Commission to precisely identify, at the appropriate procedural moment, the presumed victims in a case before the Court,18 except in the exceptional circumstances contemplated in Article 35(2) of the Court’s Rules, which states that when it has not been 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, the Court shall decide whether to consider those individuals as victims.19 32. The Court finds that in this case it is not appropriate to apply the exception contemplated in Article 35(2) of the Rules of Procedure. Therefore, it admits the objection presented by the State, and will only consider Mr. Tulio Álvarez as the presumed victim. VI EVIDENCE 33. The Court received several documents presented as evidence by the State, the representatives, and the Commission, attached to their principal briefs (supra paras. 1, 7 and 8). The Court admits those documents presented by the parties and the Commission at the appropriate procedural opportunity that were not disputed or challenged. 34. In addition, the Court points out that the State submitted various observations to the annexes provided by the representatives with their final written arguments. 20 These observations refer to the content and probative value of the documents and do not constitute an objection to their admission. 35. As to the evidence submitted during the public hearing, the Court received the statements of the presumed victim, Mr. Tulio Álvarez; of the witness Esther Quiaro, proposed by the State; and the expert opinions of Catalina Botero and Magaly Vázquez, proposed by the representatives. The Court also received the affidavits of Carmen Guadalupe Ramos, Anna Mercedes Martínez, Mirtha Güedez Campero, Ibéyise Pacheco, Víctor Arturo Gil La Rosa, Andrés Raúl Paez Pedauga, Elías Reinaldo Álvarez Leal, Leonel Alfonso Ferrer, Claudia Ernestina Carrillo Ramírez,21 and Juan Carlos Tabarez Hernández, 22 proposed by the representatives and the State. The Court deems it pertinent to admit the statements made during the public hearing and the affidavits, insofar as these are in keeping with the purpose defined in the order requiring them and the purpose of this case. VII FACTS Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006, Series C, No. 148, para. 98; and Case of Omeara Carrascal et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2018, Series C, No. 368, para. 55. 19 Cf. Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 4, 2012, Series C, No. 250, para. 48; and Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 23, 2018, Series C, No. 359, para. 27. 20 The State presented various observations to the annexes, arguing that it was not sufficient to provide the evidentiary documents, but that the parties must present arguments linking the evidence to the facts considered represented, and that, since the matter concerns alleged financial disbursements, the items of expenditure and their justification must be clearly specified. 21 The representatives of the presumed victim requested the substitution of the expert witness Magdalena López de Ibañez, summoned to render her testimony by affidavit, for Claudia Carrillo Ramírez. Decision of August 23, 2018: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/alvarezramos_23_08_18.pdf. 22 The State requested that the expert witness Federico Fuenmayor be replaced by Mr. Juan Carlos Tabarez Hernández. Decision of August 23, 2018: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/alvarezramos_23_08_18.pdf. 18 8