decisions,27 the possible occurrence of such violations should be studied when considering the merits of the matter. 49. Finally, it should be added that, in view of the State’s arguments related to the rights included by the representatives in their pleadings and motions brief, the Court has repeatedly held that the representatives or the alleged victims may invoke rights other than those mentioned by the Commission since the alleged victims are holders of the rights established in the Convention. To deny them this capacity would imply an undue restriction on their condition as subjects of the International Law of Human Rights. In any event, the Court’s case law requires that such arguments be based on the factual framework of the Report on the Merits.28 As a corollary, the Court holds the preliminary objection inadmissible. V PRELIMINARY QUESTION DETERMINATION OF THE NUMBER OF ALLEGED VICTIMS AND THE ALLEGED IMPROPER INCLUSION OF FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE ALLEGED VICTIMS IN THE PLEADINGS AND MOTIONS BRIEF A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 50. The State requested that the alleged victims included by the representatives in their pleadings and motions brief who were not identified in the Merits Report not be taken into account. It also indicated that, through the administrative mechanism created for that purpose, it recognized that 141 of the alleged victims were irregularly dismissed and listed them in the National Registry of Irregularly Dismissed Employees (hereinafter “National Registry”), which enabled them to have access to the Special Benefits Program (Programa Extraordinario de Acceso a Beneficios). Therefore, the State requested that those 141 persons be excluded from the controversy. In addition, it claimed that Carlos Arturo Cobeñas Torres, Juana Isabel Peña Rodríguez, Gudiel Máximo Quiñónez Baldeón and Abelardo Zarazú Salazar are not dismissed employees under Resolutions 1303-“A”-92-CACL and 1303-“B”92-CACL and, therefore, should be excluded from the controversy. 51. The State also pointed out that the Merits Report does not refer to any impairment to the rights of family members of the former congressional employees and, therefore, in order to guarantee the State’s right of defense, the family members of the dismissed employees should not be considered alleged victims. 1, 2021. Series C No. 439, paras. 32 to 35; Case of the Indigenous Peoples Maya Kaqchikel of Sumpango et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 5, 2021. Series C No. 440, para. 118; Case of Manuela et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 2, 2021. Series C No. 441, para. 182; Case of the Former Employees of the Judiciary v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of November 17, 2021. Series C No. 445, paras. 100 to 104; Case of Palacio Urrutia et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2021. Series C No. 446, para. 153; Case of the National Federation of Maritime and Port Workers (FEMAPOR) v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of February 1, 2022. Series C No. 448, paras. 107; Case of Pavez Pavez v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 4, 2022. Series C No. 449, para. 87; Case of Guevara Díaz v. Costa Rica. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 22, 2022. Series C No. 453, paras. 55 to 61 and Case of Mina Cuero v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 7, 2022. Series C No. 464, para. 127. Cf. Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru, supra, para. 37 and Case of Guevara Díaz v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 55. 27 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru, supra, para. 155 and Case of Cuya Lavy et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 53. 28 15