vulnerability, illiteracy and mobility of the presumed victims, and that they had never complained about the way they were represented in the international proceedings. Lastly, the representatives underscored the Court’s case law that, in certain circumstances, the list of victims might vary during the processing of the case. B.4. Considerations of the Court 44. The Court notes that the State had filed various preliminary objections against the list of 33 presumed victims indicated in the Admissibility and Merits Report and considered that only 18 presumed victims were duly represented, identified and mentioned in that report. 45. In addition, the Court recalls that the victims must be indicated in the brief submitting the case and in the Commission’s report. However, when they were not indicated in these documents, on some occasions and owing to the particularities of each case, the Court has considered individuals who were not included as such in the petition as presumed victims, provided that the right to defense of the parties had been respected and the presumed victims were related to the facts described in the Merits Report and to the evidence provided to the Court,27 taking into account also the magnitude of the violation.28 46. Regarding the identification of the presumed victims, the Court recalls that Article 35(2) of its Rules of Procedure establishes that, when it has been justified that it was not possible to identify some of the presumed victims of the facts of the case because it concerned massive or collective violations, the Court will decide, in due time, whether to consider them as victims based on the nature of the violation.29 47. Thus, the Court has evaluated the application of Article 35(2) of the Rules of Procedure based on the particular characteristics of each case,30 and has applied Article 35(2) in massive or collective cases with difficulties to identify or contact all the presumed victims owing, for example, to the presence of armed conflict,31 displacement32 or when the bodies of the Cf. Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of April 29, 2004. Series C No. 105, para. 48, and Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Judgment of July 1, 2006, Series C No. 148, para. 91. 27 Cf. Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and neighboring places v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 25, 2012. Series C No. 252, para. 51. 28 Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 4, 2012. Series C No. 250, para. 48, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and neighboring places, para. 50. 29 It should be pointed out that the Court has applied Article 35(2) of its Rules of Procedure in the following cases: Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala; Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 24, 2012. Series C No. 251; Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and neighboring places v. El Salvador; Case of the Afrodescendant Communities Displaced from the Río Cacarica Basin (Operation Genesis) v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2013. Series C No. 270, and Case of the Campesina Community of Santa Bárbara v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 299. In addition, it has rejected its application in the following cases: Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 13, 2011. Series C No. 234; Case of the Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 283; Case of García and family members v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2012. Series C No. 258; Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 21, 2013. Series C No. 261; Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275; Case of Rochac Hernández et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 14, 2014. Series C No. 285, and Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 288. 30 Cf. Case of the Río Negro Massacres, para. 48, and Case of the Afrodescendant Communities Displaced from the Río Cacarica Basin (Operation Genesis), para. 41. 31 Cf. Case of Nadege Dorzema et al., para. 30, and Case of the Afrodescendant Communities Displaced from the Río Cacarica Basin (Operation Genesis), para. 41. 32 14