28 sure that those facts were also object of the processing of the present case before the Commission and that they are related to the facts of the same prior to May 9, 1992. It is important to mention that before the Court Peru did not object the evidence regarding the facts of after May 9, 1992 nor did it present arguments to contradict said facts, despite having multiple opportunities to do so. B) REGARDING THE DETERMINATION OF THE ALLEGED VICTIMS 170. In the present case, pursuant to that stated in Article 33(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the Commission included in the text of the application the name of the alleged victims, indicating who the deceased inmates were (“whose death [was] established in a irrefutable manner through the body of evidence”), the inmates injured, and the inmates that resulted without injuries. With regard to the next of kin of the alleged victim, despite the fact that the Commission requested that the Court declare that they were the victims of breaches to Articles 510, 8, and 25 of the Convention, the first only indicated the name of some of the next of kin of the inmates that died (Appendix A of the application). Likewise, it mentioned that the list of the alleged victims presented by the petitioners in the proceedings before the Commission was not contested by the State. 171. In the brief of pleadings and motions the intervener indicated that there were 11 persons included in the application as “uninjured” inmates, but that according to the evidence collected by her these people had been injured during the events of this case. Later, when responding a request for clarifications to facilitate adjudication of the case (supra para. 104) the intervener claimed that there were two more people in the same situation. In this regard, the intervener explained that after the year 2001, alleged victims regarding which they did not have information gave it to her and that others gave her a more detailed information, and she also explained that some injuries to the hearing system, injuries caused by splinters, and mild bullet injuries were not originally considered as injuries by some inmates, reason for which it was thought that they were not inured. On its part, the Commission, when presenting the observations that were requested to it regarding this matter (supra paras. 102 and 103) indicated, inter alia, that “if the common intervener presented evidence that leads the Honorable Tribunal to the conclusion that [said] persons were injured during the facts, the Commission considers their inclusion as victims appropriate.” 172. The Court will take into consideration the evidence included in the case file in order to proceed to determine if the alleged surviving victims, whose names are in the application, resulted uninjured or injured, including these 13 alleged victims to which the intervener refers as allegedly injured (supra para. 171). The Tribunal points out that the State was guaranteed its right to defense and that it did not present any objection or observation in this regard. 173. Likewise, the Tribunal will take into consideration the evidence requested by the President to facilitate adjudication of the case in what refers to the alleged victims (supra paras. 122 and 124), according to which there was one more person that should be included as an alleged surviving victim,11 whose name was not 10 The breach of Article 5 of the Convention regarding the next of kin was claimed in the brief of final arguments. 11 It is Mr. Francisco Alcazar Miranda.