that these differences are explained by “the difficulties of access to the territory where there is armed conflict and the permanent danger faced by the communities when preparing a definitive list of victims.”32 39. The Court recalls that, under Article 35(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the report to which Article 50 of the Convention refers “must establish all the facts that allegedly give rise to a violation and identify the presumed victims.” Thus, it corresponds to the Commission and not to this Court to identify the presumed victims in a case before the Court precisely, and at the appropriate procedural opportunity.33 However, the Court recalls that, according to Article 35(2) of the Rules of Procedure, “[w]hen it has not been possible to identify [in the brief submitting the case] one or more of the alleged victims who figure in the facts of the case because it concerns massive or collective violations, the Court shall decide whether to consider those individuals as victims.” 40. As noted, in this case the lists presented by the Commission and by the representatives differ, because more persons are included on the latter (supra paras. 37 and 38). Furthermore, it is relevant to recall that, during these proceedings, the Commission made repeated reference to the complexities and difficulties to fully identify all the presumed victims in the specific circumstances of the case, and to the consequent need to adopt flexible criteria to respond to its particularities. The representatives shared this opinion. In addition, as indicated by the representatives, without this being contested, the special characteristics of the context and the difficulties of access to the territory were recognized by the State itself when it referred to the reasons why it had not investigated the events surrounding the forced displacement adequately. 41. In application of Article 35(2) of the Rules of Procedure, in order for a person to be considered a victim and to be awarded reparation, he or she must be reasonably identified. However, as noted in the main briefs, the case refers to events involving several hundred persons who were forced to displace to different places that took place around 15 years ago, in an area of difficult access and with the presence of illegal armed groups. The Court recalls that its objective is not “to obstruct the development of the proceedings with excessive formalities, but rather, to the contrary, to adapt the definition given in the judgment to the requirements of justice.”34 42. Consequently, bearing in mind the scope and nature of the facts of the case, as well as the time that has passed, the Court finds it reasonable that it is difficult to identify and to individualize each of the presumed victims, especially in the case of displaced populations, in a vulnerable situation, that are difficult to locate. On this basis, the Court considers it reasonable that the initial list of presumed victims presented by the Commission could have varied during the processing of this case, and therefore, in application of Article 35(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court will take into account the list presented by the representatives in their motions and arguments brief. 32 The representatives added that “several persons were not included, and it is an omission that [they had] acknowledged throughout the proceedings, but this does not annul the list of victims presented with the brief with motions, arguments and evidence.” 33 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 98, and Case of García and family members v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 34. 34 Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 4, 2012. Series C No. 250, para 34, and Case of the the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 25, 2012 Series C No. 252, para. 54. 15