31 Evelina, Rosa, Agustina, Ana María, Carmen, Pilar, Victoria, and Judith, all of surnames Radilla Martínez, as injured parties, which it does do so in its application.” 107. In response to that requested by the State, in their final written arguments the representatives stated that the alleged victims in the present case have been “[d]uly identified with their voter credentials and acknowledged as victims in the [Commission’s] application in its paragraph 75.” The Inter-American Commission did not make any comments in this regard. 108. The Court has established that the alleged victims must be established in the application and in the Commission’s report according to Article 50 of the Convention. Additionally, pursuant with Article 34(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the Commission, and not this Tribunal, shall identify with precision and at due procedural time, the alleged victims in a case before this Court.71 109. In this regard, the Tribunal warns that the Report on Merits adopted by the Commission in this case, mentioned Mr. “[R]osendo Radilla-Pacheco and his next of kin, Tita radilla Martínez, Andrea Radilla Martínez, and Rosendo Radilla Martínez” as victims of the rights enshrined, inter alia, in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention.72 At the same time, said report recommends that the State “[a]dequately repair the next of kin of Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco, Tita Radilla Martínez, Andrea Radilla Martínez, and Rosendo Radilla Martínez, for the violations of human rights established in the […] report […].”73 In the rest of the document there are no specific references to any other of the next of kin of the alleged victim, only generic mentions to the same.74 An expanded list with the names of thirteen of Mr. Radilla-Pacheco’s next of kin is presented before the Inter-American Commission after the adoption of that report, on September 18, 2007, through a brief in which the representatives stated their position on the submission of the case to this Tribunal.75 Thus, in the application filed by the Commission before the Court thirteen of Mr. Radilla-Pacheco’s next of kin, that is, his 12 children and deceased wife, are identified as alleged victims. 110. Pursuant with the jurisprudence of this Tribunal, the determination made by the Commission in its application regarding who should be considered next of kin of the alleged disappeared victim shall correspond to that decided by it in the Report on Merits. Legal certainty demands, as a general rule, that all the alleged victims be duly identified in both briefs, not making it possible to add new alleged victims in the application, without this resulting in a detriment to the right to defense of the accused State. In this case the Commission has not argued difficulties in the timely determination of all the next of kin of Mr. Rosendo Radilla as alleged victims. Likewise, it cannot be concluded from the case file 71 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; Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, supra note 56, para. 50, and Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil, supra note 32, para. 24. 72 Cf. Report on Merits No. 60/07, adopted by the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights on July 27, 2007 (dossier of appendixes of the application, appendix 1, folio 41). 73 Cf. Report on Merits No. 60/07, adopted by the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights on July 27, 2007 (dossier of appendixes of the application, appendix 1, folio 45). 74 Cf. Report on Merits No. 60/07, adopted by the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights on July 27, 2007 (dossier of appendixes of the application, appendix 1, folios 21 through 23). 75 Cf. Brief of the representatives addressed to the Inter-American Commission, of September 18, 2007 (dossier of appendixes to the application, appendix 1(32), folios 594 through 595).