VI PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS A. Determination of the presumed victims 14. With regard to the persons who must be considered presumed victims in this case, the Inter-American Commission noted that when approving Report No. 83/10, it had referred to the child and to Mr. Fornerón, the only names that appeared in the case file at the time the decision was adopted. In addition, it observed that, following the approval of that report, the representatives added certain next of kin of Mr. Fornerón and his daughter as presumed victims. Thus, in their pleadings and motions brief, the representatives added as presumed victims: Argentina Rogantini (paternal great-grandmother of the child), and Araceli Nahir Terencio and Víctor Fornerón (paternal grandmother and grandfather of the child). The State indicated that the only beneficiaries of possible reparations are those determined by the Commission in its Merits Report; namely, Mr. Fornerón and the child, M. 15. The Court recalls that, in its case law in recent years, it has established that the presumed victims must be indicated in the Commission’s report under Article 50 of the Convention and in the application filed before the Court. In addition, under Article 34(1) of the current Rules of Procedure, it is for the Commission and not this Court to identify the presumed victims in a case before the Court precisely and at the appropriate procedural opportunity.14 16. The instant case was filed under the Court’s Rules of Procedure that came into force in 2010. Consequently, under Article 35 thereof, the Commission does not submit the case by means of an application, but rather by the presentation of the report referred to in Article 50 of the Convention. Thus, in accordance with the criteria indicated above, the Court considers it necessary to clarify that the next of kin added by the representatives will not be considered presumed victims in this case, because they were not indicated as such by the Inter-American Commission in Report on Merits No. 83/10. B. Determination of the factual framework 17. According to Article 35(3) of the Rules of Procedure, the Inter-American Commission must indicate which of the facts contained in the report referred to in Article 50 of the Convention are submitted to the Court’s consideration. In its brief submitting the case, the Commission indicated that “it submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court all the facts […] described in Report on Merits [No.] 83/10.” Thus, the Merits Report constitutes the factual framework for the proceedings before the Court, so that, with the exception of events subsequent to the submission of the case, it is not admissible to allege in the pleadings and motions brief any facts other than those described in the Report, without prejudice to presenting those that explain, clarify, or reject facts that have been mentioned in the latter.15 18. The representatives indicated that in “Argentina child trafficking is systematic throughout the country, [and] that the State is aware of such situations.” They also 14 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 98, and Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 13, 2011. Series C No. 234, para. 42. 15 Cf. Case of “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, paras. 153 and 154, and Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 237, paras. 32 and 33. 7