B. Considerations of the Court 18. The Court recalls that preliminary objections are acts by which a State seeks to prevent the analysis of the merits of a contested matter in a preliminary manner. To this end, it may file an objection to the admissibility of a case or to the jurisdiction of the Court to hear a specific case of any of its aspects, due either to the person, the matter, the time or the place, provided that its arguments are of a preliminary nature. 11 If those arguments cannot be considered without first examining the merits of a case, they cannot be examined by means of a preliminary objection.12 19. The Court considers that the arguments presented do not constitute a preliminary objection, because they do not explain why the case submitted would be inadmissible or the Court without jurisdiction to hear it. Consequently, the Court declares the preliminary objection filed by the State inadmissible. V PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS A. The victims in this case a.1 Arguments of the State and observations of the representatives 20. The State contested the inclusion of certain family members of Mr. Ruiz Fuentes as presumed victims in this case. In particular, the State indicated that the Commission had identified Mr. Ruiz Fuentes’ sister as the only family member and as a victim in this case and, according to the Court’s Rules of Procedure and its case law, this disqualified others from being considered an injured party and, consequently, from being considered beneficiaries of possible measures of reparation. 21. The representatives indicated that the members of Mr. Ruiz Fuentes’ family who should be considered victims in this case are his sister, W.E.R.V (Mr. Ruiz Fuentes’ daughter) and A.M.V. (his partner). They indicated that the Commission had expressly recognized Mr. Ruiz Fuentes’ sister in its Merits Report. Regarding the other two family members, they argued that they had been able to locate them after the case had been submitted to the Court, and had obtained the corresponding powers of attorney. In their final written arguments, the representatives indicated that the failure to identify them previously was due to their fears for their safety if they took part in the process to seek justice and the proceedings before the Court. The representatives considered that the said circumstances warranted the Court adopting a more flexible position in relation to the determination of the victims in this case. 22. The Commission did not present observations in this regard. a.2 Considerations of the Court 23. Regarding the identification of presumed victims, the Court recalls that Article 35(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure establishes that the case will be submitted by the presentation of the Merits Report, which must identify the alleged victims. Thus, it corresponds to the Commission to identify the alleged victims in a case before the Court precisely and at the proper procedural moment,13 subject to the exceptional circumstances established in Article 35(2) of the Court’s Rules 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. 12 Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 39, and Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru, supra, para. 20. 13 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 Gorigoitía v. Argentina. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. 11 7