Commission’s report issued according to Article 50 of the Convention, as well as in the application before this Court. In addition, in keeping with Article 35 of the Rules of Procedure, it is the responsibility of the Commission, and not this Tribunal, to identify with precision and at the proper procedural moment the alleged victims in a case before the Court.17 Likewise, the Tribunal finds that the admissibility and merits report indicated by the Commission dates to 2009, that is, subsequent to the adoption of the standard mentioned regarding the identification of the victims. On the other hand, that presented additionally by the Inter-American Commission in its final written arguments in regard to the determination of the alleged victims is time-barred.. 29. Consequently, the Tribunal specifies that the individuals that will be considered as alleged victims in this case are Pedro Miguel Vera Vera and Francisca Mercedes Vera, who were indicated as such by the Inter-American Commission in the report to which Article 50 of the American Convention refers, as well as in the application.18 However, this does not prevent the Court from taking into consideration the testimonies of Agustín Abraham Vera Vera and Francisco Rubén Vargas Balcázar (supra para. 20) as evidence of the facts alleged in this case. B. Factual Basis of the application 30. In its application, the Commission referred to an alleged situation that is generalized in Ecuador regarding “the overpopulation of prisoners in establishments of the penitentiary system[,] poor provision of equipment and medicine in health clinics of the penitentiary system, as well [as a] lack of minimum requirements such [as] access to medical care,” among other things, when alleging the human rights violations suffered by Mr. Pedro Miguel Vera Vera in 1993. In the public hearing (supra para. 8), the Commission noted that the case of Pedro Miguel Vera Vera “demonstrates […] that the detention system does not have the resources, mechanisms, and procedures necessary in order to ensure that persons who require urgent medical attention receive[d] treatment in a timely manner[.]” Nevertheless, in its final written arguments, the Commission noted that “[t]he information available indicates [that], to date, this situation entailing the lack of an institutional response that would allow for the provision of medical treatment to those deprived of liberty persists, and thus it is indispensable that measures of non-repetition be issued in order to resolve this problem in a general manner in Ecuador.” For their part, during the hearing, the representatives argued that there is currently a pattern “of indolence on behalf of [State] authorities regarding the health of persons deprived of Gelman V. Uruguay, supra note 12, para. 32, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) V. Brazil, supra note 4, paras. 79 to 80 17 Cf. Case of Masacres de Ituango V. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C. No. 148, para. 98; Case of Rosendo Cantú and otra V. México. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010 Series C No. 216, para. 140, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) V. Brazil, supra note 4, para. 78. 18 Cf. Admissibility and Merits Report No. 82/09, Case of 11.535. Milton Zambrano Vera V. Ecuador (case file of annexes to the application, appendix I, folios 96 to 122). Application of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (case file of Merits, tomo I, folios 4 a 26). 13