52. The Commission indicated in its submission brief that the alleged victims in this case are Tirso Román Valenzuela Ávila and his next of kin, without identifying each of them. For this reason, pursuant to the provisions of Article 35(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court and the precedents on which this Court has ruled, the Court concludes that Tirso Román Valenzuela Ávila is the only presumed victim in this case. and it is not appropriate to admit the next of kin of Mr. Valenzuela as presumed victims. Furthermore, due to the requests made by the representatives and by Ms. Mendoza López, this Court requires the parties and the Commission to keep confidential the contact information of Mr. Valenzuela Ávila's next of kin, as well as the names of his two children procreated with Ms. Mendoza López. 53. In consideration of decisions made, this Court will not examine the arguments presented by the representatives regarding the alleged violations of the rights of the family and of the child, enshrined in Articles 17 and 19 of the American Convention, to the detriment of the next of kin of Mr. Valenzuela Ávila. 54. Regarding the State's objections aimed at pointing out that, in the event that compensation is ordered to be paid in accordance with Guatemalan regulations, the only beneficiaries would be Mr. Valenzuela’s legal heirs, the Court considers that the arguments refer to evidential aspects that are not related to the admissibility of the case or to the Court’s jurisdiction to hear it. In the case of fixing a reparation as a result of a causal link with the facts of the case, the declared violations and the accredited damages, the terms by which the corresponding designation and distribution will be made will be established in the corresponding chapter. VI EVIDENCE A. Admissibility of documentary evidence 55. In this case, as in others, the Court admits the probative value of those documents presented by the parties and by the Commission in the due procedural opportunity, as well as those documents presented as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case 22 and that were not controversial or disputed, nor whose authenticity was questioned (supra paras. 1, 6 and 7) to the extent that they are pertinent and useful for the determination of the facts and their possible legal consequences.23 Notwithstanding the above, specific considerations will be made below and the disputes raised on the admissibility of certain documents will be resolved. Regarding the expert opinion of Parvais Jabbar and Edward Fitzgerald, the State presented observations related to its probative value. It should be remembered that said expert opinion was rendered in the cases of “Girón and Castillo, Martínez Coronado, Ruiz Fuentes and Rodríguez Revolorio et al.” all against Guatemala, and then transferred to this case. This Court considers that the State does not contest its admissibility, but rather questions its probative value, and therefore admits it as documentary evidence. On May 3, 2019, the Secretariat of the Court, following instructions from the President of the Court, requested the State to present various documents as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case, in accordance with Article 58(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court. On four occasions, the State requested an extension for the presentation of the aforementioned documents, which, following the instructions of the President of the Court, were granted through the communications of this Secretariat of May 15 and 28, 2019, and of May 6 and 21. June 2019. In its last request and in light of the above, following instructions from the President, the State was granted a non-extendable term that expired on July 22, 2019, to submit the aforementioned documentation. Finally, the State did not present the requested documentation. 23 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140, and Case of Galindo Cárdenas et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 2, 2015. Series C No. 301, para. 67. 22 15