7 IV PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS 20. The State filed two preliminary objections related to the failure to determine and individualize the alleged victims, and the failure to exhaust domestic remedies. However, the Court notes that these arguments do not constitute preliminary objections, since they are not questioning the admissibility of the case or the jurisdiction of the Court to hear a particular case or any of its aspects.13 On the contrary, the State refers to: i) the determination and individualization of the alleged victims and ii) the inclusion of facts that supposedly do not form part of the factual framework of the case. For this reason, they will be analyzed as preliminary considerations. A. Determination and individualization of the alleged victims A.1 Arguments of the parties and the Commission 21. The State indicated that the Commission has identified the next of kin of Juan Arrom Suhurt and Anuncio Martí as alleged victims in a generic way. It stressed that before the Court the representatives have “presented a list of 24 people, alleging a supposed ‘family link’ existing with Messrs. Juan Arrom Suhurt and Anuncio Martí.” It argued that “in order to grant the status of alleged victim, [they] must examine the alleged violations committed against [the detriment of] each individual,” however, in the present case the Commission presumed the effects on their personal integrity without further analysis. analysis. The State also highlighted that the partners and children of Juan Arrom Suhurt and Anuncio Martí were not identified by name. It requested the Court that “only Messrs. Juan Arrom Suhurt and Anuncio Martí be considered as alleged victims.” 22. The Commission argued that, “contrary to what the State affirmed, [the Commission] individualized at least six next of kin as victims of harm to their mental integrity and the remaining persons were mentioned with the highest level of specificity possible, within the available information.” It indicated that “[i]n this scenario, it will be up to the Honorable Court to determine whether the exception contained in Article 35.2 of the Rules of Procedure is applicable to the persons not identified by name in the Report on the Merits.” 23. The representatives alleged that the State “had the opportunity to oppose the participation of the next of kin of Arrom and Martí and they did not do so. Instead, under the pretext of an alleged a lack of precision by the [Commission], they are trying to do so now.” They indicated that “when the Commission refers to the next of kin of Juan Francisco Arrom Suhurt and Anuncio Martí Méndez, it makes specific reference to all persons who meet such conditions and not to others. For this reason […], there is no lack of precision.” A.2 Considerations of the Court 24. The Court notes that the arguments presented refer to the alleged failure to identify the next of kin of Juan Arrom Suhurt and Anuncio Martí. In its Report on the Merits, the Commission concluded that “the next of kin of Juan Francisco Arrom Suhurt were victims of a violation to their personal integrity, namely, his partner and the children they had at the time, and his sisters Cristina, Marina, Carmen and María Auxiliadora; as well as […] the next of kin of Anuncio Martí Méndez, namely, his partner and the son he had at the time the events occurred and his sisters Marina Cristina and Marta Ramona.” Subsequently, in the concluding cf. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of February 4, 2000. Series C No. 67, para. 34, and Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 6, 2019. Series C No. 375, para. 20. 13