victim worked, under which operations were provided at a reduced cost to family members of its employees and officers.” 21. The Court notes that, in the Merits Report, the Commission referred to the operation that presumed victim Melba Suárez Peralta underwent in the Minchala Clinic, the ailments suffered as a result of this, and the criminal action filed by presumed victim Melba Peralta Mendoza based on the supposed “dirty operation” that had been performed on her daughter, Melba Suárez Peralta. 13 During those criminal proceedings, inter alia, the site of the facts was inspected and Dr. Emilio Guerrero’s employment status was verified (infra paras. 41, 42, 47, 53, 55 and 58). 22. Based on the above, the Court considered that, when alleging the supposed violation of Article 5(1) of the Convention, the representative referred to the factual framework set out by the Commission in the Merits Report and expanded contextual elements to include those described. Therefore, the Court decided to rule in its analysis of the merits on the presumed violation of Article 5(1) of the Convention submitted by the representative. B. Request to include other presumed victims in the case 1. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 23. The State argued that “the Court should declare itself incompetent to examine the reparations claimed in favor of Dennis Cerezo Cervantes, Gandy Alberto Cerezo Suárez, Katherine Madeleine Cerezo Suárez and Marilyn Melba Cerezo Suárez, because […] the right of action to submit a case before the Court corresponds to the [Commission, and] not to the presumed victim; consequently, the determination of those who would be the victims and beneficiaries of an eventual reparation can only be those persons that the Commission determines in its Merits Report, a document that defines the limits of the case.” 24. The representative argued that the pleadings and motions brief constitutes a brief that is autonomous and independent from the allegations contained in the Commission’s Merits Report, and can incorporate other beneficiaries or victims who were involved in the context of the facts denounced. Consequently, he considered that the members of the Cerezo Suárez family, understanding these to be Dennis Cerezo Cervantes, Mrs. Suárez Peralta’s husband, and their children, namely Gandy Alberto, Katherine Madeleine and Marilyn Melba, all with the surnames Cerezo Suárez, were also victims of the presumed violations to the detriment of Melba del Carmen Suárez Peralta. 25. For its part, the Commission considered that the determination of victims in this case is an issue that should be analyzed during the merits stage. 2. Considerations of the Court 26. Pursuant to the provisions of Article 35(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, in its brief submitting the case, the Commission noted that the presumed victims in this case were Melba del Carmen Suárez Peralta and Melba Peralta Mendoza. However, the representative identified Dennis Cerezo Cervantes, and Gandy Alberto, Katherine Madeleine and Marilyn Melba, all with the surnames Cerezo Suárez, as additional victims. 13 Cf. Merits Report No 75/11, Case 12,683, Melba del Carmen Suárez Peralta, Ecuador, July 20, 2011 (merits file, folios 16, 17 and 23). 9