15 A. Determination of the presumed victims 40. The State argued that the violations of the human rights of N.V. and L.A., alleged by the representative, referred to facts that had not been included in the Merits Report. In this regard, although the Commission had referred to the alleged non-consensual sterilization, it had not established a factual framework for presumed violations in relation to I.V.’s daughters, and had not classified them as indirect victims. Consequently, the State rejected the inclusion of N.V. and L.A. as presumed victims in this case, on the grounds that: (i) the daughters had not been included in the Commission’s Merits Report; (ii) the facts of this case did not demonstrate mass violations that had prevented their identification at the proper opportunity; (iii) the judgments cited by the representative refer to factual circumstances that differed from this cases and were not applicable to it, and (iv) the representative never requested a declaration of the State’s international responsibility for violating the rights of I.V.’s daughters before the Commission. The representative argued that it was based on the passage of time that the two daughters had become indirect victims of the State’s actions and inaction in relation to their mother. She added that, although it was I.V. who had experienced both the sterilization and the denial of justice directly, over the ensuing 16 years, N.V. and L.A. had also become victims of those violations and their negative implications and impacts. The Commission made no observations in this regard. 41. The Court recalls that, in order to safeguard legal certainty, and pursuant to Article 35(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, the presumed victims must be duly identified and indicated in the Merits Report of the Commission, apart from the exceptional circumstance established in Article 35(2) of the Rules of Procedure. Consequently, the responsibility for identifying the presumed victims in a case before the Court, precisely and at the proper procedural opportunity corresponds to the Commission and not to this Court.23 42. The Court has verified that, in its Merits Report, the Commission established I.V. as the sole victim in this case. However, when submitting the motions and pleadings brief, in addition to identifying I.V. as presumed victim, the representative added L.A. and N.V., the daughters of I.V., as presumed victims of the violation of Article 5 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 19 and 1(1) of this instrument. The Court points out that the instant case does not relate to one of the exceptions under the said Article 35(2) that could justify the identification of presumed victims following the Merits Report. 43. Therefore, in application of Article 35(1) of its Rules of Procedure and its consistent case law, the Court declares that it will only consider I.V. to be the presumed victim, because she was the only person identified as such in the Commission’s Merits Report. B. The factual framework of the case 44. The State asked the Court to disregard the additional facts presented in the motions and pleadings brief before it began to examine the merits of the case. The State underlined that the representatives may invoke the violation of rights other than those established in the Merits Report, but those rights should be restricted to the facts contained in the Merits Report. The representative indicated that the motions and pleadings brief was limited to the factual framework established by the Commission in its Merits Report and no new facts had been alleged. She also stressed that the State had not indicated which new facts its request referred to. Consequently, she asked the Court to reject the request because it was based on imprecise arguments. The Commission made no ruling in this regard. Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 98, and Case of Flor Freire v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2016. Series C No. 315, para. 32. 23