8 paragraph of the Report on the Merits, the Commission indicated that “the State of Paraguay is responsible for the violation of the rights to juridical personality, to life, to personal integrity, to personal liberty, to judicial guarantees and protection established in Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligation established in Article 1(1) of the same instrument, to the detriment of Juan Francisco Arrom Suhurt[,] Anuncio Martí Méndez and his relatives.” The Court understands that the term “relatives” included in the conclusion of the Report on the Merits refers to the next of kin previously identified in the chapter on personal integrity. 25. On the other hand, the representatives in their arguments included other relatives of Juan Arrom Suhurt and Anuncio Martí Méndez.14 26. Regarding the identification of the alleged victims, the Court recalls that Article 35(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure establishes that the case will be submitted to the Court by presenting the Report on the Merits, which must identify the alleged victims. It is therefore up to the Commission to accurately identify at the appropriate procedural opportunity the alleged victims in a case before the Court,15 save for the exceptional circumstances contemplated in Article 35(2) of the Rules of Procedure. In this exception, when a justification is offered as to the impossibility to identify the alleged victims, because it concerns massive or collective violations, the Court shall decide in due course whether to consider them victims according to the nature of the violation.16 27. This Court finds that in this case it is not appropriate to apply the exception provided for in Article 35(2) of the Rules of Procedure. Consequently, only those persons specifically identified in the Report on the Merits may be considered alleged victims. Therefore, only Juan Arrom Suhurt, Anuncio Martí Méndez, Cristina Arrom Suhurt, Carmen Arrom Suhurt, Maria Auxiliadora Arrom Suhurt, Marina Arrom Suhurt, María Cristina Martí Méndez and Marta Ramona Martí Méndez will be considered alleged victims. 28. Lastly, the Court notes that part of the State's allegations is that there is insufficient proof or reasoning regarding certain violations of the Convention with respect to the next of kin of Juan Arrom Suhurt and Anuncio Martí Méndez. These allegations are related to the merits of the case and therefore will not be examined in this chapter. B. On the factual framework of the case B.1 Arguments of the parties and the Commission 29. The State alleged that “[a]fter the admissibility process had been closed” the petitioners introduced arguments referring to 2010 press publications, which included the alleged victims in In particular, in the communication in which the representatives presented the powers of attorney, they indicated that they also represented Juan Arrom Suhurt and Anuncio Martí Méndez, Liza Liana Larriera Rojas, Gloria Elizabeth Blanco, Carlos Ernesto Arrom Insaurralde, Laura María Arrom, Luana María Larriera Arrom, Felipe Manuel Martí Blanco, Sara Blanco Martí, Elena Mendez Vda. de Martí, Maria Teresa Arrom Suhurt, Carmen Aurora Arrom de Salgado, Carmen Edilia Arrom de Cabello, Carmen Marina Arrom Suhurt, Cristina Haydée Arrom Suhurt, Rossana Eleuteria Arrom de Escurra, Elizabeth Avelina Arrom de Femández, Wenceslao Marcial Arrom, María Auxiliadora Arrom de Orrego, Mercedes Beatriz Arrom Leiva, Marta Ramona Martí de Páez, lsabelino Martí Mendez, María Cristina Martí Méndez , and Rufina Martí Méndez . Cf. Communication of January 25, 2018 (merits file, fs. 63 to 66). 15 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. 16 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. 14