12 VI PRIOR CONSIDERATIONS Determination of the alleged victims in the present case 41. This Tribunal finds it relevant to determine who must be considered as the alleged victims in this case. In the first paragraph and the foot note on page 1 of the petition, the Commission identified as alleged victims Florencio Chitay Nech and his children: Encarnación, Pedro, Eliseo, Estermerio, and María Rosaura, all with the last name of Chitay Rodríguez. In the Report on Merits, the Commission indicated as alleged victims Florencio Chitay and his next of kin. Nevertheless, the Commission, both in the public hearing as well as in its final written arguments, requested the Court to consider Marta Rodríguez Quex, the wife of Mr. Chitay Nech, who died on February 26, 1999,22 as an alleged victim for the violation of Articles 5, 17, 8, and 25 of the Convention, “given that the spirit of the Report on Merits and of the petition was to include all the members of the Chitay Rodriguez family.” On the other hand, in the written brief of pleadings and motions, the representatives also indicated that Marta and Amada, the sister-in-law of Mr. Chitay Nech, both with the last name of Rodriguez Quex, were alleged victims of the supposed violations. Subsequently, at the public hearing and in its final written arguments, the representatives requested that the community of San Martín Jilotepeque be included as a alleged victim of the violations of human rights. 42. In its response to the petition, the State did not refer expressly to the identity of the alleged victims in the present case, but indicated that Amada Rodriguez Quex was not to be included within the beneficiaries of the economic reparations, in virtue of the fact that the written brief of pleadings and motions “at no moment states Amada is a victim of the supposed violation committed by the State, but rather that she was a witness.” 43. The Tribunal pointed out that in the Report on the Merits No. 90/08, the Commission noted that the alleged victims of the case were Florencio Chitay Nech and his next of kin, without specifying who was included within the expression “next of kin.” Nevertheless, in the petition, the Commission clarified that “it [would] utilize the expression ‘victim’ only to refer to Florencio Chitay Nech and ‘next of kin of the victim’ to refer to his sons and daughter.” The Court observes that the Commission did not argue the existence of difficulties in the timely determination of all the next of kin of Mr. Chitay Nech as alleged victims.23 44. The Tribunal has established in its jurisprudence that the alleged victims must be stated in the petition, which must correspond with the Commission’s Report to which Article 50 of the Convention makes reference. In addition, in accordance with Article 34(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, it corresponds to the Commission rather than to this Tribunal to identify with precision, at the appropriate procedural opportunity, the alleged victims in a case before this Court.24 Judicial security demands, as a general rule, that all 22 Cf. Certificate of Death of Marta Rodríguez Quex processed by the Civil Registrar of the Republic of Guatemala, No. 1842839 written in book 61, act 117, folio 213 (anexos to the brief on motions and pleadings, annnex 11, f. 1377). 23 24 Cf. Case Radilla Pacheco V. México, supra note 12, para. 110. Cf. Case of the Ituango MassacreV. Colombia. Preliminary Exception, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 1 of July of 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 98; Case Radilla Pacheco V. México, supra note 12, para. 108, and Case Of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra note 12, para. 20.