because it failed to “provide a simple and prompt remedy to examine all the factual and legal issues related to the dispute before it.” In this regard, Uruguay presented factual and legal elements concerning the appeal for annulment before the ContentiousAdministrative Tribunal, as well as regarding “[other] judicial remedies […] that exist under Uruguayan law.” Finally, with regard to the evidence proposed by the representatives to support the alleged facts that do not form part of the factual framework of this case, the Court takes into account the State’s observations as regards their lack of pertinence or inadmissibility (supra paras. 19 and 22) and decides to admit them in the understanding that it will only take them into account to the extent that they refer to the purpose of this case, bearing in mind the factual framework determined in this chapter. B. Regarding the determination of the alleged victims 42. The Court recalls that, in its consistent case law since 2007,23 it has established that the alleged victims must be named in the application, and must correspond to the determination made in the Inter-American Commission’s report under Article 50 of the Convention. In addition, according to Article 34(1) of the Court’s previous Rules of Procedure applicable to this case (supra para. 4), it corresponds to the Commission rather than the Court to identify the alleged victims precisely and at the opportune procedural moment in a case before the Court.24 As a general rule, legal certainty requires that all the alleged victims are duly identified in both briefs and it is not possible to add new alleged victims in the application.25 43. The Court also notes that the instant case does not comply with any of the assumptions under Article 35(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure that could justify the identification of alleged victims following the application or the submission of the case. 44. Under the provisions of Article 34(1) of the Court’s previous Rules of Procedure, the Inter-American Commission included the names of the alleged victims in this case in the application. The Commission indicated that they are “a group of depositors of the Banco de Montevideo” and, concerning their individualization, it specified that “[d]uring the processing of the case before the Commission, the account holders of 708 accounts were identified, of a group of more than 1,400 depositors of the Banco de Montevideo.” In the first footnote of the application, the Commission listed the names of the alleged victims, “identified by savings accounts.” 45. In the pleadings and motions brief, the representatives of the alleged victims argued the international responsibility of Uruguay to their detriment “and also to the detriment of the group of depositors victims that they represent,” indicating that they were presenting the list of the 419 “depositors” they represented. 23 Since the Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, paras. 65 to 68, and the Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, paras. 224 to 225. The Court adopted these judgments during the same session. See also, Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011 Series C No. 221, para. 32, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010, Series C No. 219, paras. 79 to 80; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 110; Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 25, 2010. Series C No. 212, para. 44, and Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador, supra note 18, para. 28. 24 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; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil, supra note 23, para. 79, and Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador, supra note 18, para. 28. 25 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 23, para. 110; Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra note 24, para. 20, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 23, para. 44. 14