20 by the State, the Court has considered that such alleged new victims should be included.16 94. Based on it jurisdictional function and pursuant to Article 62 of the Convention, which indicates that the Court has jurisdiction to hear “all cases concerning the interpretation and application of the provisions of [the] Convention,” in cases with multiple alleged victims, the Court has considered several ways to overcome “shortcomings in the identification or individualization of some of the alleged victims” in the application,17 whose names are to be found in the briefs where other alleged victims appear. For example, the Court has requested the Commission to remedy such flaws by presenting lists of alleged victims identified following the application.18 Also, in cases where the alleged victims “have or have not been identified or individualized” in the application,19 the Court has ordered the State to “individualize and identify the victims […] and their next of kin,” for the effects of Finally, the Court has taken the initiative to overcome the reparations.20 shortcomings in the identification of alleged victims in the application, by its own examination of the evidence presented by the parties, even when the parties have admitted that some people “by error, were not included in the list of alleged victims.”21 Likewise, the Court has declared individuals who were identified in the evidence provided by the parties as “possible victims,” even when these people were not identified in the Commission’s application.22 95. The foregoing makes it clear that, although the identification of alleged victims in a case is governed by the parameters established in the Convention and in the Rules of Procedure, the Court, based on its jurisdictional function and in accordance with Article 62 of the Convention, may take decisions in this respect, that take into account the particularities of each case and the rights regarding which a violation has been alleged, provided that the right to defense of the parties is respected and that the alleged victims have some connection with the facts described in the application and the evidence provided to the Court. 96. In keeping with these criteria, the Court will examine the determination of the alleged victims in this case who were not included in the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility in the chapters on the merits of each alleged violation. 97. The Court deems it pertinent to indicate its concern regarding the discrepancy between the persons indicated by the Commission in its report based on Article 50 of the Convention as alleged victims of Article 21 thereof, versus the persons that its application alleges are victims of this article (supra paras. 3 and 11). Neither the 16 Cf. Case of the Moiwana Community, supra note 12, para. 71. 17 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 12, paras. 107 and 111. 18 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 12, paras. 107 and 111. 19 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 8, paras. 247 and 252. 20 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 8, paras. 305 and 306. 21 Cf. Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al., supra note 12, para. 227. 22 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 8, paras. 255 and 258.