13. The Court has jurisdiction to hear this case pursuant to Article 62(3) of the Convention, because Paraguay has been a State Party to the Convention since August 24, 1989, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on March 26, 1993. IV PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATION A. Arguments of the parties and the Commission 14. The representatives, in their pleadings and motions brief, identified the following as presumed victims: Bonifacio Ríos Ávalos and his family members, Sara Concepción Parquet de Ríos, Shirley Rossana Ríos Parquet, Edgar Bonifacio Ríos Parquet and José Carlos Ríos Parquet, wife and children, respectively; and Carlos Fernández Gadea and “his heirs,” María Concepción Villalba Quevedo, Carlos Aníbal Fernández Villalba, José Luis Fernández Villalba, Julio Cesar Fernández Villalba, Jesús María Fernández Villalba and Catalina Fernández Ocampos, wife and children, respectively. However, the State asked that the Court “maintain its uniform criteria” that only Bonifacio Ríos Ávalos and Carlos Fernández Gadea could be considered the injured party, the latter “represented by his heirs, who must be adequately identified.” It argued that it corresponded to the Commission to identify the injured party and, in the instant case, the Commission had not considered that the members of the presumed victims’ families were included in this category. The Commission did not comment in this regard. B. Considerations of the Court 15. The Court recalls that, pursuant to Article 35(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the case is submitted to its jurisdiction by the presentation of the Merits Report, which must identify the presumed victims. Consequently, it corresponds to the Commission to identify the presumed victims precisely and at the appropriate procedural moment,16 save in the exceptional circumstances established in Article 35(2) of the said Rules of Procedure, according to which, when it has been justified that it was not possible to identify one or some presumed victims in cases of massive or collective violations, the Court will decide at the appropriate moment whether or not to consider them as such, based on the nature of the violations.17 16. Consequently, in application of the said Article 35(1) of the Rules of Procedure, since none of the exceptions established in Article 35(2) apply, the Court concludes that it is not possible to include presumed victims other than those identified in the Merits Report; namely, Bonifacio Ríos Ávalos and Carlos Fernández Gadea. V EVIDENCE A. Admissibility of the documentary evidence 17. The Court received diverse documents presented as evidence by the Commission and the parties together with their principal briefs (supra paras. 4, 7 and 8). As in other cases, this Court admits those documents presented at the appropriate moment (Article 57 of the 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 Guachalá Chimbo et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 26, 2021. Series C No. 423, para. 23. 17 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 Guachalá Chimbo et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 23. 16 7