54. Despite the foregoing, the State filed this objection owing to the difference between the Admissibility report and the Merits report and the alleged violation of its “right of defense” and to “procedural equality,” in relation to the inclusion of the members of the Jean family as presumed victims in the second document. 55. The Merits report of this case indicates that, “[a]lthough the Jean family was not mentioned by name in the Admissibility Report […], the Commission notes that the information on the situation of these people was supplied to the Commission starting in 2002 and forwarded to the State thereafter.” Indeed, the Court has verified that, on several occasions before and after the issue of the Admissibility report on October 13, 2005, information was presented on the members of the Jean family of which the State was aware. 45 56. The Court notes that, during the processing of the case before the Commission prior to the issue of the Merits report, the State was able to present its exculpatory arguments on this aspect. The State has not indicated any reason or proved why, in the instant case, the failure to identify the members of the Jean family and the respective facts in the Admissibility report would prejudice its ability to defend itself, or that this had not been rectified by the subsequent opportunities it has had to submit its exculpatory arguments. 57. Based on the above, the Court rejects the objection filed by the State. V PRELIMINARY ISSUES 58. The State presented two preliminary issues that relate to: (a) some petitioners were disqualified from being considered presumed victims in this case, and (b) the inadmissibility ratione materiae [….] of the presumed facts and acts alleged by the representatives that were not recognized by the Commission [….] in its factual framework.” The issues raised by the State will be analyzed as follows: (A) Determination of the presumed victims, and (B) Factual framework. A) Determination of the presumed victims 59. The Court will now describe and analyze the aspects grouped by the State into a “preliminary issue” concerning whether certain persons qualified as presumed victims; in other words, concerning the possibility of examining the alleged violation of treaty-based rights with regard to these persons. Notwithstanding the fact that, as indicated by the Commission and the representatives this “preliminary issue” relates in part to factual determinations (infra para. 69), for reasons of procedural economy and greater clarity, Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 224. These judgments were adopted by this Court during the same session. This criterion has been ratified when applying the Court’s new Rules of Procedure: cf. Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 237, footnote 214, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 29, 2014. Series C No. 279, para. 29. 45 After the issue of the Admissibility report on March 31, 2006, the representatives presented a communication to the Commission in which they stated that “the family of Victor Jean is not expressly mentioned as a victim in the Admissibility report.” That communication was forwarded to the State on May 8, 2006, and the Commission asked it “to present any observations it deemed opportune.” There is no record that the State responded to this request. Later, a series of steps were taken corresponding to measures to achieve a friendly settlement; in addition, the representatives presented observations on the merits of the matter, and requested that the Commission issue the merits report. They also forwarded a list of victims, including the members of the Jean family. Furthermore, the State mentioned some members of the Jean family during the friendly settlement process when requesting certain information. 21