61. With the delimitation of the factual framework of the case in mind (supra para. 59), the Court finds that the additional facts alleged by the representative (supra para. 60) are not limited to explaining, clarifying or refuting the facts presented by the Inter-American Commission in its Merits Report and, therefore, introduce aspects that were not part of that framework. Consequently, based on this Court’s consistent case law (supra para. 57), this series of facts alleged by the representative does not form part of the factual basis of the case submitted to the consideration of the Court by the Inter-American Commission. B. Presumed victims 62. The Court observes that, in its Merits Report, the Inter-American Commission individualized 53 persons as presumed victims of violations of the American Convention. However, eight of them, all allegedly next of kin of the young men named previously, do not appear on the list of presumed victims forwarded by the representative in her pleadings and motions brief. 29 In this regard, the Court observes that, in this case, none of the parties presented specific factual arguments in relation to the supposed suffering undergone by these eight persons, regarding which it would be possible to determine a violation of the American Convention. Furthermore, the Court does not have any evidence to prove such suffering. Therefore, the Court is unable to rule on the supposed violation of personal integrity perpetrated to the detriment of Gabriela Ángela Videla, Romina Vanessa Vilte, Junior González Neuman, Jazmín Adriadna Martínez, Emmanuel Martínez, Alejandra Garay, Carlos Roldan and Walter Roldan. 63. Similarly, the Court observes that none of the parties submitted factual arguments regarding 24 persons included in the group of 53 presumed victims mentioned in the preceding paragraph and individualized in the Merits Report, all of them brothers and sisters of Cesar Alberto Mendoza, Claudio David Núñez, Lucas Matías Mendoza, Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal and Ricardo David Videla Fernández. Therefore, the Court will not rule on the supposed violations alleged to the detriment of these persons. 30 64. Furthermore, the Court observes that in her pleadings and motions brief, the representative alleged the violation of Article 5(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of Jimena Abigail Puma Mealla, as a relative of Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal, and of Lourdes Natalia Plaza and Daniel David Alejandro Videla Plaza, as relatives of Ricardo David Videla. However, these persons were not individualized as presumed victims in the Commission’s Merits Report. In this regard, the Court recalls that its consistent case law in recent years has established that the presumed victims must be indicated in the report issued by the Commission under Article 50 of the Convention. In addition, pursuant to Article 35(1)(b) of the Rules of Procedure, it is for the Commission to identify the presumed victims in a case before the Court precisely and at the appropriate procedural opportunity. 31 Thus, the Court 29 Gabriela Ángela Videla, Romina Vanessa Vilte, Junior González Neuman, Jazmín Adriadna Martínez, Emmanuel Martínez, Alejandra Garay, Carlos Roldan and Walter Roldan. 30 Siblings of Cesar Alberto Mendoza: María del Carmen Mendoza, Roberto Cristian Mendoza, Dora Noemí Mendoza and Juan Francisco Mendoza; siblings of Claudio David Núñez: Yolanda Elizabeth Núñez, Emely de Los Ángeles Núñez, María Silvina Núñez and Dante Núñez; siblings of Lucas Matías Mendoza: Omar Maximiliano Mendoza, Elizabeth Paola Mendoza (Paola Elizabeth Mendoza), Verónica Luana Mendoza (Verónica Albana Mendoza) and Daiana Salomé Olgupin (Diana Salome Olguín); siblings of Saúl Roldán Cajal: Evelyn Janet Caruso Cajal, Juan Ezequiel Caruso Cajal, Cinthia Carolina Roldan, María de Lourden Roldán, Rosa Mabel Roldan, Albino Abad Roldan, Nancy Amalia Roldan and Yohana Elizabeth Roldan, and siblings of Ricardo David Videla Fernández: Juan Gabriel Videla, Marilín Estefanía Videla, Esteban Luis Videla and Roberto Damián Videla. 31 Cf. Case of García and family members v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2012. Series C No. 241, para. 34, and Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of April 29, 2004. Series C No. 105, para. 48. 23