19 respond to the allegations of the Commission and the representatives at all stage of the proceedings. Finally, it is for the Court to decide on the admissibility of allegations in each case in order to safeguard the procedural equality of the parties.10 The case of supervening facts is different, since they may be presented by any of the parties at any stage of the proceedings prior to delivery of the judgment.11 90. The Court will now determine, pursuant to the Rules of Procedure and its case law, and bearing in mind the characteristics of this specific case, which of the people who were not included by the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility will be considered alleged victims in this case. 91. The Court has developed extensive case law on the determination of alleged victims in the cases it hears using criteria applicable to the circumstances of this case. According to Article 50 of the Convention, the alleged victims must be indicated in the application and in the Commission’s report. However, owing to the particularities of each case this has not always been so, and the Court has therefore considered as alleged victims persons who were not alleged as such in the application, provided that the right to defense of the parties has been respected and that the alleged victims have some connection with the facts described in the application and the evidence provided to the Court.12 92. Particularly in cases of massacres or of multiple victims, the Court has been flexible in the identification of alleged victims, even when they have been alleged in the Commission’s application as “the survivors” of the massacre and “their next of kin,” or when the parties have submitted additional information on the identification of the alleged victims in briefs submitted subsequent to the application.13 In other cases involving massacres, the Court has considered as alleged victims, “the persons identified by the Commission in its application [...] and those who may be identified subsequently, since the complexities and difficulties in individualizing them, suggest that there are still other victims to be determined.”14 93. In some cases, the Court has emphasized that the right to defense of the parties is the determining criteria.15 Nevertheless, even in the presence of objections 10 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 9, para. 54; and Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 8, para. 58. 11 Cf. Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, supra note 9, para. 69; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 9, para. 54; and Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 8, paras. 57 and 59. 12 Cf. Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al. Judgment of February 7, 2006. Series C No. 144, para. 227; Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 8, para. 183; Case of the Moiwana Community. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, para. 74; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”. Judgment September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 111; and Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre. Judgment of April 29, 2004. Series C No. 105, para. 48. 13 Cf. Case of the Moiwana Community, supra note 12, para. 74; and Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 12, para. 111 14 Cf. Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre, supra note 12, para. 48. “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 8, paras. 183 and 305. Cf. likewise, Case of the 15 Cf. Case of the Moiwana Community, supra note 12, para. 74; and Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 12, para. 111.