8 of the reparations[, given that] they were not included in prior communications due to a material error.” Lastly, the State expressed in the communication of October 2, 2009, that “the fact that documentation has been submitted to the Court that certifies them as their representatives in the instant case, does not grant them the capacity of [alleged] victims.” The State added that these individuals were not identified as next of kin or beneficiaries during the proceedings before the Commission, and have not been recognized by the State, additionally, it is inadmissible to “include them as surviving victims, as this has not been verified and they do not appear in the application submitted by the [Commission], which constitute the subject of this dispute (litis).” 19. In the instant case, the Court notes that the Commission claimed violations in a clear and specific manner against 155 alleged victims, over which there is no controversy between the parties as to their identification in that capacity. Additionally, the Court confirms that Mr. Bernabé Cristales Montepeque and Ms. María Rebeca García Gómez were not included in the list of alleged victims presented in paragraph seven of the application, nor in the report on Article 50 of the Convention, therefore the Court requested information or clarifications in that regard, as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case. Additionally, the Court observes that the individuals who died in the massacre were not included either in the aforementioned report or application in the capacity of alleged victims. 20. In its jurisprudence the Court has already established that the alleged victims must be listed in the application and in the report by the Inter-American Commission, pursuant to Article 50 of the Convention. In addition, in conformity with Article 34(1) of the Rules of Procedure, it corresponds to the Commission and not to this Court to identify with precision and at the due procedural time the alleged victims in a case before this Court.17 Legal certainty demands, as a general rule, that all alleged victims must be duly identified in both briefs, and that it is not possible to add new alleged victims to the application. Consequently, since they were not mentioned at the due procedural time, the Court may not consider Mr. Bernabé Cristales Montepeque, Ms. María Rebeca García Gómez, or those deceased during the massacre, as alleged victims in the instant case. It is therefore inappropriate to adjudge on the alleged violations claimed against them. 21. Consequently, the Court considers that the alleged victims in the present case are those which the Commission identified in paragraph seven of the application, namely: a) two survivors of the massacre (supra note 7), and b) 153 next of kin of the deceased in the massacre (supra note 8). IV PARTIAL RECOGNITION OF THE STATE’S INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY 22. In its answer to the application the State expressed “its partial recognition of the facts denounced by the […] Commission [which] must be understood in terms of the alleged [violation] of Articles 8 and 25 of the [Convention,] in relation to the obligation enshrined in Article 1(1)” thereof. The State considered that it “cannot excuse itself from the responsibility related to the acts or omissions of its judicial authorities, as such attitude would result contrary to what is provided” in said Articles of the Convention. However, it stated that “in the present case there is a friendly 17 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 98; Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008. Series C No. 117, para. 102, and Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C No. 190, para. 58.