29 included in the application, but was indicated in the brief of another group of representatives of alleged victims that the common intervener enclosed in her brief of pleadings and motions (supra para. 53). Similarly, that group of representatives requested the inclusion as an alleged victim of another person12 that was not in Miguel Castro Castro Prison during any of the days in which the “Operative Transfer 1” was carried out, but that they claim was later transferred to the criminal center of Santa Mónica de Chorrillos and submitted to conditions of imprisonment that allegedly breached his rights. The Court could not include said person as an alleged victim since it is only considering the alleged violations occurred after the “Operative Transfer 1” in relation to those inmates that lived through the facts of the mentioned “Operative”. 174. With regard to the alleged victims, in her brief of pleadings and motions the intervener also indicated that there were 31 people included in the list of alleged victims of the Commission’s application that the intervener considers are not alleged victims “because they were not in pavilions 1-A and 4-B at the time of the facts or because they reached individual agreements with the Peruvian State.” The intervener reiterated said position when reasoning a request for clarifications to facilitate adjudication of the case (supra para. 104). On its part, when presenting the observations requested to it regarding this matter (supra para. 102), the Commission indicated that “[d]uring the proceeding before it, and based on the evidence provided by the parties, the Commission reached the conviction that these 31 persons were also victims of the facts […],” and it stated that “it has not had before it evidence that discredits this conclusion.” 175. In this sense, this Court will issue a ruling regarding these 31 individuals that were included in the application taking into account the evidence presented, the Commission’s observations, as well as the fact that the State did not object their inclusion as alleged victims nor did it make an observation in this sense, despite having had the procedural opportunity to do so. 176. On the other hand, in what refers to the next of kin of the alleged victims in the proceeding before the Court, both by means of the common intervener as well as through the evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case, the names of other family members have been included and evidence has been presented to the Court in this regard. 177. In the present case the Commission and the common intervener have claimed that the next of kin of the inmates stated as alleged victims in this case would also be alleged victims of the claimed breaches against the American Convention. 178. The jurisprudence of this Tribunal regarding the determination of alleged victims and their next of kin has been ample and adjusted to the circumstances of each case. Pursuant to Article 33(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, the identification with precision and in the due procedural opportunity of the alleged victims in a case before the Court corresponds to the Commission, and not this Tribunal.13 However, in its defect, on some occasions the Court has considered as victims people that were not claimed as such in the application, as long as the right 12 It is Mrs. Claudina Delgado Narro. Cfr. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 5, para. 29; Case of Servellón García et al., supra note 3, para. 158; and Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 7, para. 98. 13