fugitives were recaptured and seven of them “died due to circumstances that occurred during the operation”; (c) that the State carried out other investigations and issued judgments, in which it convicted state officials for the extrajudicial execution of a person who had escaped from that prison, as well as other people who had escaped from the Pavón and Infiernito prisons that occurred between 2005 and 2006; (d) that the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (Comisión Internacional contra la Impunidad en Guatemala, hereinafter also “CICIG”) ruled on the interference of the authorities in the actions carried out for the extrajudicial execution of fugitives and the existence of a parallel structure to execute those who they considered "degenerates and enemies of society", and (e) the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions (hereinafter "Special Rapporteur") in their report on their visit to Guatemala, reported the existence of groups dedicated to cleansing in the National Civil Police. Furthermore, in relation to the legal reform to include the death penalty for kidnapping cases alleged by the representatives, the Commission indicated that, despite the fact that the State has neither imposed nor applied the death penalty and the Criminal Chamber of The Supreme Court of Justice has been commuting it in recent years, the death penalty continues to be prescribed for the crime of kidnapping. 46. Consequently, the Court will consider those supplementary facts argued by the representatives that were taken into account by the Commission related to the context of the death of Tirso Román Valenzuela Ávila and “Operation Gavilán” (infra paras. 89 to 95) and it will discard those facts that are not related to the factual framework contemplated in the Merits Report of the Commission (supra para. 43). B. Regarding the determination of the alleged victims and possible beneficiaries of the reparation measures, and the lack of documentation on the link that accredits the inheritance of his mother, wife and partner B.1. Arguments of the State and observations of the Commission and the representatives 47. The State argued that there is a violation of the principle of legal certainty due to the lack of determination of the list of alleged victims. It requested that the Court establish precisely that the only victim is Tirso Román Valenzuela Ávila. Furthermore, the State argued that in accordance with article 1078 of the Civil Code of the State of Guatemala, in intestate successions, the children and the surviving spouse who have the right to "gain" are named first and will inherit in equal parts. It argued that the only ones entitled to succeed the alleged victim would be his sons Jorge, Luis and Tirso Valenzuela Ruíz, given that no document was presented to prove the status of his spouse, nor that of his cohabitant. Nor was it proven that Florinda López de López is Mr. Valenzuela's mother. 48. The Commission named Mr. Valenzuela Ávila as the alleged victim and mentioned his next of kin in the Merits Report without identifying them individually. In its brief with observations on the preliminary objections filed by the State, the Commission highlighted that “it did not know the names of the next of kin of the [alleged] victim” and that “complex circumstances concurred that made it difficult to include the names of the next of kin of Tirso Román Valenzuela Ávila,” for which reason it argued that the exception contained in Article 35(2) of the Rules of Procedure could be applied, without prejudice “to the reparations that correspond to the next of kin of Valenzuela Ávila as legitimate heirs.” The Commission did not refer to the State's allegations regarding legitimate heirs in intestate successions and only indicated that this cannot be considered a preliminary objection. 13