[in keeping with the Rules of Procedure], as it is not therefore a full right to present issues of fact and law before [the Court].” They indicated that “the complaint was filed, the facts denounced were continually added to, [and] the Argentine State fully exercised its defense, all under the framework of this proceeding before the [Inter-American System for the Protection of Human Rights; however,] despite all this, contrary to all predictions, in this case the [Inter-American Commission] has not included in its Report on the merits all the facts denounced, nor all the individuals that [the representatives] have identified as other victims of the enforced disappearance of Iván [Eladio Torres Millacura], some of which are covered by the provisional measures.” Therefore, they requested that when the Court rules on the alleged violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, it “convict [the State], taking into consideration that to date it has not provided adequate protection to the rights to life and physical integrity of the persons related to the enforced disappearance of Iván Eladio Torres [Millacura].” 47. The State argued that the Commission explicitly indicated in paragraph 74 of its Report on the merits, in the subsection on the “position of the petitioners,” that the representatives had held that the facts of the case constituted “violations to mental and moral integrity and a denial of justice, to the detriment of María Leontina Millacura Llaipén, Valeria Fabiola Torres, and Marcos [Alejandro] Torres [Millacura, that is, the mother, sister, and brother of Mr. Torres Millacura], direct relatives of the disappeared victim.” Likewise, in that Report, in its analysis of the violation of Article 5 of the American Convention, the Commission specified only those individuals. However, the State highlighted that in its conclusions, the Inter-American Commission also indicated one of Iván Eladio Torres's nieces as a victim, as the Commission “accept[ed] the statements of the petitioning party with regard to [Mr.] Torres Millacura's having been the financial supporter of the family prior to his disappearance,” even though this “was not proven by the representatives [...] or corroborated by the [...] Commission.” Therefore, the State argued that based on this and on the elements proven in the case, and on the Court’s jurisprudence, only Mr. Torres Millacura’s mother and two siblings should be considered “immediate family.” Finally, the State indicated that in the brief of pleadings and motions, the representatives “limit[ed] themselves to listing those persons who formed part of or had formed part of [Iván Eladio Torres’s] immediate family and to making affirmations with regard to the afflictions allegedly suffered, without providing documentary evidence to support these statements.” Those relatives included three of Iván Eladio Torres Millacura’s nieces. Therefore, the State argued that the claim could not “be addressed by the [Court,] given that it was not considered by the Commission during the proceeding before it.” The State reiterated that those who should be “considered Iván Torres Millacura's family members for the purposes of reparations are his mother, his sister, and his brother.” 48. The Court recalls that in its settled jurisprudence since 200728, it has established that alleged victims must be indicated in the Commission’s report issued in accordance with Article 50 of the Convention, as well as in the application before this Court. In addition, in keeping with Article 35 of the Rules of Procedure, it is the responsibility of the Commission, and not of this Tribunal, to identify the alleged victims in a case before the Court with precision and at the proper procedural moment. The Tribunal finds that the Report on admissibility and on the merits indicated by the Commission dates from the year 2009, which is to say, subsequent to the mentioned standard on the identification of victims. 28 Since the Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, paras. 65 to 68, and Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, paras. 224 to 225. These judgments were made by the Tribunal during the same period of sessions. See also, Case of Vera Vera et al. V. Ecuador, supra note 17, para. 28. 16