27. In this regard, the Court recalls its consistent case law to the effect that the presumed victims must be indicated in the Commission’s Merits Report issued under Article 50 of the Convention and in the submission of the case to the Court pursuant to Article 35(1) of the Rules of Procedure. 14 According to this article, it is for the Commission, and not the Court, to identify the presumed victims in a case before it precisely and at the appropriate procedural opportunity. 15 Legal certainty requires, as a general rule, that all the presumed victims are duly identified in both briefs, and it is not possible to add new presumed victims following the Merits Report, except in the exceptional circumstances contemplated in Article 35(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. 16 The Court notes that this case does not involve one of the presumptions under the said Article 35(2) that could justify the identification of presumed victims following the Merits Report or the submission of the case. 28. Therefore, in application of Article 35(1) of its Rules of Procedure and its consistent case law, the Court declares that it can only consider as presumed victims those persons who were identified in the Merits Report; in other words Melba del Carmen Suárez Peralta and Melba Peralta Mendoza. IV COMPETENCE 29. The Court is competent to hear this case, pursuant to Article 62(3) of the Convention, because Ecuador has been a State Party to the Convention since December 28, 1977, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on July 24, 1984. V EVIDENCE 30. Based on the provisions of Articles 46, 47, 50, 57 and 58 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as on its case law concerning evidence and its assessment, 17 the Court will examine and assess the documentary probative elements forwarded by the parties at different procedural moments, the statements and testimony provided by affidavit and during the public hearing, and also the helpful evidence requested by the Court. To this end, it will abide by the principles of sound judicial discretion, within the corresponding legal framework. 18 14 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 98, and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 24, 2012. Series C No. 251, para. 29.. 15 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra, para. 98, and Case of García and family members v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2012. Series C No. 258, para. 34. 16 Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 29, and Case of García and family members, supra, para. 34. 17 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, paras. 69 al 76, and Case of the Massacre of Santo Domingo v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of November 30, 2012. Series C No. 259, para. 41. 18 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.), supra, para. 76, and Case of the Massacre of Santo Domingo, supra, para. 41. 10