61. The Court notes in the instant case that the preliminary objection does not address the requirements for admissibility established in the American Convention; instead, the State is questioning the Commission’s actions regarding the total number of people who can be considered alleged victims in the case before the Court, as well as certain human rights violations established in the Commission’s Report on the Merits No. 66/11. These are the grounds on which the State is asking the Court to review the legality of Report No. 66/11. The Court must therefore decide whether, based on the submissions by the State, the Commission’s actions can be held to constitute a serious error that undermined the State’s right to defense, such that the Court would be blocked from holding certain persons to be alleged victims and from weighing the violations they are alleged to have experienced. 62. The Court will first address the situation of alleged victims included in the Report on the Merits who were not previously named in the Commission’s Admissibility Report, and it recalls that Article 35(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure provides for the case to be presented through the submission of the Report on the Merits, which should “identify the alleged victims.” It corresponds to the Commission to identify precisely and at the right procedural stage the alleged victims in a case before the Court.44 This means that subsequent to the Report on the Merits, no more alleged victims can be added, absent the exceptional circumstances provided under Article 35(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, 45 involving situations in which it is not possible to “identify one or more of the alleged victims who figure in the facts of the case because it concerns massive or collective violations.” Therefore, under this Article 35, which is clear and unambiguous, it is the jurisprudence constante of this Court that the alleged victims must be identified in the Merits Report issued pursuant to Article 50 of the Convention.46 The Commission identified family members as alleged victims in the instant case in Merits Report No. 66/11, thus complying with these rules. 63. The Court will now address the conclusion of the Commission’s Report on the Merits No. 66/11 concerning the violation of rights that had not been mentioned previously in the Admissibility Report. It is worth recalling from the Court’s case law that the rights set forth in the Commission’s admissibility report are the result of a preliminary examination of the relevant petition. This does not preclude the possibility for subsequent stages of the process to consider other rights or articles that have allegedly been breached, so long as the State’s right to defense is respected and the claims remain within the framework of facts in the case under discussion.47 Cf. Case of the Barrios family v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 237, para. 214, and Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 236. 44 Article 35(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure reads, “When it has not been possible to identify one or more of the alleged victims who figure in the facts of the case because it concerns massive or collective violations, the Tribunal shall decide whether to consider those individuals as victims.” 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. 47 to 51, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 25, 2012. Series C No. 252, paras. 49 to 57. 45 Cf. Case of the Barrios family v. Venezuela, supra, footnote 214, and Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 236. 46 Neither the American Convention, nor the current Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commission, nor the Rules of the Commission in force at the time when the Merits Report was issued, contains any rules requiring that the Admissibility Report establish all the rights presumably violated. Furthermore, the Court has indicated that, in the context of proceedings in the Inter-American System, it is possible to change or modify the legal classification of the facts of a specific case. This is clearly reflected in the Court’s consistent case law, according to which the presumed victims and their representatives may invoke the violation of rights other than those included in the Merits Report, provided that these remain within the factual framework. Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 155, and Case of Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 28 and footnote 21. 47