27. In this case, the State affirmed that the Commission had published Admissibility and Merits Report No. 169/2011 before submitting it to the Court. The Commission indicated that it published the report on its website on September 10, 2015, after submitting the matter to the jurisdiction of the Court on March 12, 2015, and presented evidence to prove this. The State failed to prove its assertion that the report in this case was published in a way that differed from that described by the Commission or in a manner that was contrary to the American Convention. 28. Consequently, the Court finds that the State’s argument is inadmissible. B. Alleged lack of jurisdiction ratione personae regarding the presumed victims 29. The Court will now indicate, first, the State’s arguments concerning the objections related to presumed victims: (i) identified and represented; (ii) without proof of representation; (iii) without power of attorney; (iv) unrelated to the facts of the case; (v) with a different identity, or without due representation for next of kin, and (vi) who were not mentioned in the Merits Report. Second, the Court will review the observations of the Commission and the representatives. It will then make the corresponding analysis. B.1. Arguments of the State i) Presumed victims identified and represented 30. The State argued that the representatives had only accredited the powers of attorney of 33 presumed victims who were supposedly found in Hacienda Brasil Verde in the year 2000.23 In addition, it indicated that the Court should analyze the facts of the case only with regard to the presumed victims who were correctly represented, and those listed in Admissibility and Merits Report No. 169/11 duly identified and involved in the events that took place in that Hacienda. The State also pointed out that, in their brief, the representatives had not mentioned the name of Francisco das Chagas Bastos Sousa; nevertheless, a power of attorney had been presented in his name. Also, no power of attorney or equivalent document had been submitted for the presumed victim or for the next of kin of Luis Ferreira da Cruz, presumably a victim of forced disappearance. ii) Presumed victims without proof of representation 31. The State indicated that the representatives of the presumed victims should present a power of attorney signed by the presumed victim or by a family member, which should fully identify the party granting it. In addition, the State noted that, although the representatives had complied with the formal requirements stipulated by the Court when presenting the powers of attorney, problems persisted that made it difficult to identify some names and some presumed victims who supposedly were represented.24 1. Alfredo Rodrigues; 2. Antônio Bento da Silva; 3. Antônio Damas Filho; 4. Antônio Fernandes Costa; 5. Antônio Francisco da Silva; 6. Antônio Ivaldo Rodrigues da Silva; 7. Carlito Bastos Gonçalves; 8. Carlos Ferreira Lopes; 9. Erimar Lima da Silva; 10. Firmino da Silva; 11. Francisco Mariano da Silva; 12. Francisco das Chagas Bastos Sousa; 13. Francisco das Chagas Cardoso Carvalho; 14. Francisco das Chagas Diogo; 15. Francisco de Assis Felix; 16. Francisco de Assis Pereira da Silva; 17. Francisco de Sousa Brígido; 18. Francisco Fabiano Leandro; 19. Francisco Ferreira da Silva; 20. Francisco Teodoro Diogo; 21. Gonçalo Constancio da Silva; 22. Gonçalo Firmino de Sousa; 23. José Cordeiro Ramos; 24. José Francisco Furtado de Sousa; 25. José Leandro da Silva; 26. Luiz Sicinato de Menezes; 27. Marcos Antônio Lima; 28. Pedro Fernandes da Silva; 29. Raimundo de Sousa Leandro; 30. Raimundo Nonato da Silva; 31. Roberto Alves Nascimento; 32. Rogerio Felix Silva, and 33. Vicentina Maria da Conceição. 23 1. Firmino da Silva (supposedly deceased and represented by his supposed wife Maria da Silva Santos); Gonçalo Constancio da Silva (supposedly deceased and represented by his supposed wife Lucilene Alves da Silva), and José Cordeiro Ramos (supposedly deceased and represented by his wife Elizete Mendes Lima). 24 11