20 and has emphasized that its purpose is not to obstruct the progress of the proceedings with formalisms but, on the contrary, to bring the definition given in the judgment closer to the demand for justice. Thus, the Court has applied Article 35(2) in massive or collective cases where there are difficulties in identifying or contacting all the alleged victims, for example, due to armed conflict, displacement or the burning or destruction of the bodies of the alleged victims, or in cases in which entire families have been disappeared, so that there would be no one who could speak for them. The Court has also taken into account the difficulty of accessing the area where the events occurred, the lack of records regarding the inhabitants of the place and the passage of time, as well as the particular characteristics of the alleged victims in the case, for example, when they have formed family clans with similar names and surnames, or in the case of migrants. It has also considered the conduct of the State, for example, when it is alleged that the failure to investigate contributed to the incomplete identification of the alleged victims. 65. The instant case is of a collective nature, is framed within the context of Guatemala’s armed conflict and involves, in principle, approximately 477 alleged victims listed in the “Single Annex” to the Merits Report. Moreover, this case involves alleged arbitrary detentions, multiple extrajudicial executions, forced disappearances, rape and other forms of sexual violence, torture, the burning of houses and property, and the displacement and persecution of the inhabitants of Chichupac village and neighboring communities, as well as a lack of access to justice, all this in an alleged context of serious and massive human rights violations, in which the Maya people have been particularly affected. For some families, this displacement continues to this day. In addition, the facts of this case took place between 28 and 33 years prior to the presentation of the Merits Report to this Court on August 5, 2014. In this context, the Court finds it reasonable that it would have been difficult to identify all the alleged victims in the case. On the other hand, the State did not object in particular to the status of alleged victim of any of the persons individualized by the representatives in the pleadings and motions brief, or in the briefs of June 26, 2015 and May 30 and June 2, 2016, alleging only and in a generic manner, that the identification of said persons was time-barred. Therefore, in accordance with Article 35(2) of the Rules of Procedure, this Court will consider as alleged victims those persons identified and individualized by the Commission in the Merits Report, as well as by the representatives in the “General List of Victims” and in the list of “individualized and displaced persons,” submitted on June 2, 2016, since, according to them, said lists “show and encompass the largest number of victims in this case.” This, provided that the Court has the necessary evidence to verify the identity of each of those persons, who are identified in Annexes I and II of this judgment. VII EVIDENCE A. Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence 66. This Court received various documents presented as evidence by the Commission and the parties, attached to their main briefs (supra paras. 1, 4 and 5). Likewise, the Court received from the representatives certain documents requested as helpful evidence, in accordance with Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure (supra para. 10). In addition, the Court received the Cacarica River Basin (Operation Genesis) v. Colombia, paras. 33 to 36, and Case of the Peasant Community of Santa Bárbara v. Peru, paras. 54 to 57. Likewise, it has rejected their application in the following cases: Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 13, 2011. Series C No. 234, para. 43; Case of the Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 283, para. 47; Case of García and Family v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2012. Series C No. 258, paras. 34 to 37; Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 21, 2013. Series C No. 261, paras. 26 a 28; Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, paras. 23 to 25; Case of Rochac Hernández et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 14, 2014. Series C No. 285, para. 34, and Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 288, para. 236.