30 102. On the other hand, the representatives stated that “due to reasons of force majeure,” Mr. Carlos Montemayor could not go “to the notary [to] ratify” his written statement and that, however, that document was signed on all its pages, and a copy of his voter credentials was enclosed, with which they considered it could be “duly admitted.” In this regard, the State indicated that “[t]he statement does not comply with the formal requirements ordered and [that] therefore it should not be admitted.” The Court considers that the representatives did not offer a reason to validly justify an inevitable obstacle for offering Mr. Montemayor’s statement before a notary public. Therefore, the Tribunal decides not to admit said statement. 103. With regard to “[t]he written expansion of the expert report […]” offered by Mr. Miguel Sarre filed by the latter on August 14, 2009, the State requested that the Tribunal “[f]latly dismiss [that] brief […] by virtue of [its] time-barred presentation.” In that regard, the Court observes that during the public hearing held in the present case, the President of the Tribunal informally asked Mr. Sarre if he would deliver to the Court, at that time, his written expert opinion. However, she did not ask that he forward it at a later time. According to that stated in the Order of the President of the Tribunal (supra para. 8), Mr. Sarre had to offer his statement orally during the public hearing.70 In that sense, the Tribunal decided not to admit the “written expansion of the expert report” offered by Mr. Miguel Sarre. VII PRIOR CONSIDERATIONS Determination of the alleged victims in the present case 104. Before ruling on the merits of the present matter, this Court considers it necessary to specify, in the present chapter, the next of kin of the alleged victim, Mr. Rosendo RadillaPacheco, regarding whom it will analyze the existence of possible violations to their human rights. 105. In the application, the Inter-American Commission indicated that “[t]he next of kin of Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco are his spouse, Mrs. Victoria Martínez Neri (deceased) and his twelve children Tita, Andrea, Rosendo, Romana, Evelina, Rosa, Agustina, Ana María, Carmen, Pilar, Victoria, and Judith, all of surnames Radilla Martínez.” The representatives agreed with the list of the alleged victims presented by the Commission. 106. In its response to the application, the State indicated that “[i]n good faith, it acknowledge[d] the family relationship of Messrs. Tita, Andrea, and Rosendo, all of surnames Radilla Martínez,” with Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco. However, it asked the Court “[n]ot to consider Victoria Martínez Neri, or Romana, Evelina, Rosa, Agustina, Ana María, Carmen, Pilar, Victoria or Judith, all of surnames Radilla Martínez, [alleged] victims in the present case, since they were not presented as such by the Commission at the correct procedural moment.” In this regard, it stated that in “the Report [on Merits] No. 60/07 of July 27, 2007, the Commission only mentioned Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco as an [alleged] victim and made brief references to three of his next of kin: Tita Radilla, Andrea Radilla, and Rosendo Radilla Martínez, but it never referred to them as [alleged] victims.” According to the State, in that report the Commission did not mention “Victoria Martínez Neri or Romana, 70 Cf. Case of Radilla-Pacheco v. Mexico. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court, supra note 4, fourth operative paragraph.