ii.-in paragraph 22 of the Merits Report, a direct victim and her relatives are identified as victims in the case, including, among others, the “three children of Nery Del Carmen,” but no information is provided that would make it possible to identify them; 24 iii.- in the Merits Report, the Commission mentioned two people called “Erasmo,” one without a surname and another with the surname “Movilla,” but the representatives later explained that this was one and the same person, and, iv.- the Merits Report mentions an alleged victim called “Marta” Movilla, but in the pleadings and motions brief, the representatives point out that, although she was known by that name, her identity document states that she is “Florencia” Movilla Galarcio; b) They are not covered by the presumption of juris tantum, established by the Court in its case law, which states that certain relatives of direct victims may also be considered victims.25 This would apply to Erasmo de la Barrera Movilla (nephew); Iván Darío Vega Movilla (nephew); Nery del Carmen Vega Movilla (niece); Ana Karina Vega Movilla (niece); Raúl Rafael Ramos Movilla (nephew), Ricardo Adolfo Ramos Movilla (nephew); Franklin Hander Movilla (nephew); Dominga Josefa Movilla Galarcio (niece); María Isabel Carriazo de Román, (mother-in-law), and José de Jesús Vergara Román (father-in-law); or, c) They are deceased: this is the case of María de Jesús Movilla Barrera and Rita Candelaria Movilla Galarcio, sisters of Pedro Julio Movilla Galarcio, in addition to other persons whom the State also asked be excluded as alleged victims for other reasons: Florencia Movilla Galarcio, María Isabel Carriazo de Román and José de Jesús Vergara Román. Colombia asserted that this was also the case of Erasmo de la Barrera Movilla, Ricardo Adolfo Ramos Movilla and Franklin Hander Movilla, as well as Raúl Rafael Ramos Movilla, who passed away after the answering brief had been submitted, whom it asked not be regarded as alleged victims, but for other reasons; and Nery del Carmen Movilla Galarcio, whom the State did not expressly ask be excluded from the alleged victims.26 44. The representatives explained that neither they nor the Commission had presented Cindy Paola de la Barrera Simanca as a victim, so there was no reason to exclude her.27 They also argued that: a) for someone to be considered an alleged victim, they only need to be identifiable based on the information provided in the Merits Report; b) the presumption that the State mentioned, in relation to the relatives of direct victims being regarded as victims, is not a rule for the exclusion of alleged victims, but rather is applied in examining the merits of the alleged violations in a given case; and c) there is no support in case law for excluding certain individuals from the category of alleged victims because they have died. 45. The Commission agreed with the representatives regarding the presumption mentioned by Colombia with respect to relatives of direct victims, and referred to some of the State’s other arguments: it maintained that the reference to the “three children of Nery del Carmen” in the Merits Report fulfills the purpose of the rule established in Article 35(1) of the Rules of Procedure regarding the identification of alleged victims; and pointed out that, in the proceedings before The State added that the representatives’ subsequent identification of these three individuals has no legal or regulatory basis, and that the inclusion of alleged victims after the Merits Report has been issued constitutes a violation of legal certainty. The three persons mentioned, according to the State, are: Iván Vega Movilla, Nerys del Carmen Vega Movilla, and Ana Karina Vega Movilla. 25 Colombia recalled that the Court, through its case law, has developed a “juridical foundation for the widening of the notion of victim,” in which a presumption of juris tantum applies with respect to “parents, children, spouses and permanent companions, and siblings.” Therefore, the State maintained that persons who do not fall within any of the categories of kinship mentioned with respect to Pedro Movilla should be excluded as alleged victims. 26 However, the Court assumes that Colombia did not acknowledge the status of Nery del Carmen Movilla Galarcio as a victim or alleged victim because it asked for deceased persons to be excluded. 27 They explained that her identity document had been attached to the pleadings and motions brief, in Annex 1, as proof of her existence as a beneficiary of Erasmo de la Barrera Movilla. 24 13