18 the application, who are described as: a) the survivors of the events of November 29, 1986 in Moiwana Village, and b) the next of kin of those who were killed that day. It is observed that Suriname found the method applied by the Inter-American Commission to determine the list of alleged victims “open to question.” However, since the State did not explain the reasons why the Commission’s method was supposedly unacceptable, the Court considers that the objection must be dismissed as imprecise and lacking adequate justification. In consequence, said individuals will be deemed to be the alleged victims of the instant case, and shall hereinafter be referred to as the “alleged victims” or the “Moiwana community members.” 72. The Court notes that on March 17, 2005, the Commission requested that the Tribunal consider four additional persons as victims in the instant case: Beata Misidjan, Edmundo Misidjan, Ludwig Misidjan, and Reguillio Misidjan. In support of its request, the Commission argued that such an inclusion was justified, as the mother of those four persons, Mado Misidjan, was allegedly killed during the 1986 attack on Moiwana Village. As a result, her children were dispersed within Suriname after the attack, lived with persons who had no contact with the other alleged victims, and only recently have been located. The representatives agreed with the Commission, adding that said individuals were present when the attack occurred and were originally included in the “requests for justice” that were presented at the national level. Yet, the representatives stated that “as the larger group of [alleged] victims was unsure if they had survived the massacre and was not aware of their whereabouts, they decided not to include them on the list submitted to the Commission and, ultimately, to the Court.” 73. Furthermore, on May 12, 2005, in their response to a request for evidence pursuant to Article 45 of the Rules of Procedure, the representatives petitioned that seven more individuals who had previously not been designated alleged victims in the present case be added to the list: Majo Ajintoena, Erwien Awese, Cornelly Madzy James, Humprey James, Romeo James, John James, and Manfika Kamee. The representatives explained that they had not been included earlier owing to an “oversight,” which occurred while compiling the original list of alleged victims. For its part, the Commission “support[ed] the identification of victims put forward by the petitioners.” 74. Regarding the requests to consider the additional persons as alleged victims, the Court observes that the State was transmitted both requests and then was expressly invited to submit observations on said information by the Secretariat’s communication of May 13, 2005, and yet did not respond on the matter. In consequence, since the State was duly granted its right of defense on the issue – yet did not object – the Tribunal rules that it is appropriate to consider the additional 11 individuals as alleged victims in the instant case. VII EVIDENCE 75. Before turning to the analysis of the evidence received, in this chapter the Court, pursuant to Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure, will make reference to certain general considerations applicable to the specific case, which have been previously developed in the jurisprudence of this Tribunal.