49. The representatives pointed out that the Commission maintained in its Merits Report that the presumed victims in this case are Tirso Román Valenzuela Ávila and his next of kin. They added that the next of kin of Mr. Valenzuela who should be considered as alleged victims are the following: Florinda López de López (mother)18, Ludim Azucena Ruiz López (wife), Luis Fernando Valenzuela Ruiz (son), Jorge Luis Valenzuela Ruiz (son) and Tirso Román Valenzuela Ruiz (son), and Rosa María Mendoza López, cohabitant of Mr. Valenzuela as beneficiary. They added that the Court in its case law has evaluated applying Article 35(2) of the Rules of Procedure based on the particular characteristics of each case, being flexible in the identification of alleged victims even when they have been alleged in the Commission's application as "survivors" of a massacre and “their next of kin” or when in subsequent briefs the representatives have presented additional information for their identification. In their final arguments they mentioned that the named persons should be recognized as direct victims and beneficiaries and, for the first time, the children procreated by Mr. Valenzuela and Ms. Mendoza, whose names are kept confidential for security reasons. In addition, the representatives requested that the contact information provided by the next of kin of Mr. Valenzuela be kept confidential, as well as that Ms. Mendoza López, in her affidavit rendered before the Court, stated that by virtue of her relationship with Mr. Valenzuela they procreated a son and a daughter, and requested that their names be withheld.19 50. The representatives considered that the State cannot invoke provisions of domestic law to fail to observe the obligations of international law. They indicated that documentation was presented that proves the blood relationship between Tirso Román Valenzuela Ávila, his mother, as well as the marriage bond with his wife. In addition, documentation was attached that accredits the de facto relationship that the alleged victim maintained with his cohabitant. In addition, they argued that the State cannot allege ignorance of the presumed victims, since “the facts related to the refusal to hand over the body of Mr. Valenzuela to his wife and mother were notified to them in March 2007.” B.2. Considerations of the Court 51. With regard to the identification of the presumed victims, the Court recalls that Article 35(1) of the Court's Rules of Procedure provides that the case will be submitted to it through the submission of the Merits Report, which must contain the identification of the presumed victims. It is therefore up to the Commission to identify the presumed victims in a case before the Court with precision and at the due procedural opportunity,20 except in the exceptional circumstances contemplated in Article 35(2) of the Court's Rules of Procedure, pursuant to which, when the impossibility of identifying them was justified, because they are cases of massive or collective violations, the Court will decide in due course whether to consider them victims according to the nature of the violation. 21 In the pleadings and motions brief, the representatives mentioned Mr. Valenzuela Ávila's mother as Lesbia Floridalma Ávila López or as Florinda López de López, and she also appears as Florinda Ávila in other documents. The annexes to the pleadings and motions brief include the birth certificate of Florinda López de López and her personal identification document. In both documents it is established that her name is Florinda López de López, as well as in the passport presented at the time of giving her statement before the Court. Because the representatives use said names interchangeably, for the purposes of this Judgment, the Court will use the name of Florinda López de López. 19 The representatives in their brief of final written arguments indicated that they would provide their birth certificates, which were not presented. 20 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 98, and Case of Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 30, 2019. Series C No. 380, para. 31. 21 Cf. Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 4, 2012. Series C No. 250, para. 48, and Case of Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela, supra, para. 31. 18 14