39. 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 shall be presented to it through the submission of the Merits Report, which must identify the alleged victims. In this regard, it is incumbent upon the Commission to identify precisely, and at the proper procedural opportunity, all the alleged victims in a case before the Court, 40 except in the circumstances contemplated in Article 35(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, namely, when it has not been possible to identify one or more alleged victims in cases involving massive or collective violations, in which case the Court will decide whether to consider those individuals as victims, in accordance with the nature of the violation. 41 40. It is clear to this Court that the facts of this case do not fall within any of the hypotheses established in Article 35(2) of the Rules of Procedure. Moreover, it is on record that, in the course of the admissibility proceedings, all the alleged victims that the representatives seek to add in their pleadings and motions brief were identified. 42 41. On the other hand, the representatives alleged that the next of kin of Daniel García Rodríguez and Reyes Alpízar Ortiz, that is, Isaías García Godínez, Martín Moreno Rodríguez and Elvia Moreno Rodríguez, were not included in the Merits Report by the Commission due to a material error. 42. In the case sub judice, the admissibility report establishes the following in relation to the next of kin of Daniel García Rodríguez and Reyes Alpízar Ortiz, namely, Isaías García Godínez, Martín Moreno Rodríguez and Elvia Moreno Rodríguez: As to the requirement of exhaustion of remedies concerning the purported violations against the other alleged victims, the Commission notes that the information filed by the petitioners is general and insufficient to analyze the fulfilment of the instant requirement” (…) Decision. (…) 3. To find the instant petition inadmissible in relation to the pleadings concerning the other alleged victims. 43. Based on the foregoing, there is no possible argument regarding the fact that the Commission justified the non-inclusion of these persons as alleged victims and that, therefore, this was not the result of a material error but, on the contrary, of considerations of the failure to exhaust domestic remedies. For the aforementioned reasons, it is not appropriate to add the next of kin of Daniel García Rodríguez and Reyes Alpízar Ortiz to the alleged victims in the case identified by the Commission in the Merits Report. Consequently, the Court will not analyze the alleged violations against the next of kin of Daniel García Rodríguez and Reyes Alpízar Ortiz, namely Isaías García Godínez, Martín Moreno Rodríguez and Elvia Moreno Rodríguez, since they were not identified as victims by the Commission at the proper procedural moment, and their situation does not fall within any of the exceptions provided for in Article 35(2) of the Rules of Procedure. C. New facts related to the political context C.1. Arguments of the parties and the Commission 44. The State argued that the representatives included new facts in their pleadings and motions 40 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; Case of Favela Nova Brasilia v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 16, 2017. Series C No. 333, para. 36, and Case of the Maya Kaqchikel Indigenous Peoples of Sumpango et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 6, 2021. Series C No. 440, para. 22. 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; Case of Favela Nova Brasilia v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 36, and Case of Barbosa de Souza et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 7, 2021. Series C No. 435, para. 38. 41 42 Cf. Inter-American Commission, Admissibility Report No. 68/17, para. 23 and third operative paragraph (supra para. 2. b.). -13-