not dependent on whether or not a preliminary objection had been filed in this regard. Therefore, they concluded that it was not incumbent on the Argentine State to apprise the Court of its competence within the international human rights system. d.2 Considerations of the Court 31. The Court reiterates that, as any organ with jurisdictional functions, it has the authority inherent in its powers to determine the scope of its own competence (compétence de la compétence/Kompetenz-Kompetenz). The declarations recognizing the optional clause on compulsory jurisdiction (Article 62(1) of the Convention) supposed the acceptance of the Court’s right to decide any dispute concerning its jurisdiction by the States that present them.13 32. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court observes that, in this case, in their brief with pleadings, motions and evidence, the representatives asked the Court to declare that “the State of Argentina is responsible for violating the rights to personal liberty and to judicial guarantees, to equality before the law and to judicial protection established in Articles 7(1), 7(3), 7(5), 7(6), 8(1), 8(2), 24 and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, to the detriment of Gabriel Oscar Jenkins.” This was repeated in the section on legal claims of this brief. Therefore, and since the representatives’ petition focuses on the declaration of the State’s violation of certain provisions of the American Convention, the Court rejects this preliminary objection. V PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATION 33. The representatives indicated in their pleadings and motions brief that Mr. Jenkins and his direct family – that is, his wife, María Leticia Pironelli, and his son, Kevin Gabriel Jenkins, should also be considered the “injured party.” 34. The State contested the inclusion of these family members as the injured party because the Merits Report prepared by the Commission only established Mr. Jenkins as the direct victim. 35. The Commission did not present observations in this regard. 36. Regarding the identification of presumed victims, the Court recalls that Article 35(1) of its Rules of Procedure establish that the case will be submitted by the presentation of the Merits Report which must identify the presumed victims. Thus, it corresponds to the Commission to identify the presumed victims in a case before the Court precisely and at the proper procedural moment, 14 with the exclusion of the exceptional circumstances established in Article 35(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure.15 37. Based on the provisions of Article 35(1) of the Rules of Procedure and the precedents in which Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Jurisdiction. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 32, and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 14, 2014. Series C No. 287, para. 41. 13 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, and Case of Gorigoitía v. Argentina. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 2, 2019. Series C No. 382, para. 25. 14 According to which, when it has been justified that it was not possible to identify the presumed victims in cases of massive or collective violations, the Court shall duly decide whether to consider them victims based on the nature of the violation. Cf. Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 4, 2012. Series C No. 250, para. 48, and Case of Gorigoitía v. Argentina, supra, para. 25. 15 10