Roxana Troncoso Robles as presumed victims. In the brief submitting the case to the Court the Commission referred to these same eight persons as the presumed victims. 29. Article 35(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure establishes that the case shall be submitted by the presentation of the Merits Report, which must “identify the presumed victims.” Thus, it corresponds to the Commission to identify the presumed victims in a case before the Court precisely and at the proper procedural moment.28 Consequently, it is not possible to add new victims following the Merits Report, save in the exceptional circumstances established in Article 35(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure,29 which are not applicable in this case, because they refer to situations in which “it has not been possible to identify one or more of the alleged victims of the facts of the case because the case concerns massive or collective violations.” Therefore, in application of Article 35, the content of which is unequivocal, it has been the Court’s consistent case law that the presumed victims must be indicated in the Merits Report established in Article 50 of the Convention.30 30. There are no valid arguments that would provide grounds for deviating from the unambiguous text of the Court’s Rules of Procedure or from its consistent case law. 31. In particular, it is not sufficient that evidence was submitted opportunely to the Commission that would have allowed considering other persons as presumed victims (as regards Víctor Ancalaf Llaupe’s family,31 but not the families of the other seven presumed victims), because the Commission did not include them in its Merits Report. 32. The mention made by this Court in previous cases of the representatives’ obligation “to indicate all the presumed victims during the proceedings before the Commission and to avoid doing so following the issue of the Merits Report”32 is not an exception to the above-mentioned consistent case law because, far from recognizing that this is not in keeping with the provisions of Article 35(1) of the Rules of Procedure, it means that the representatives may only ask that certain persons be considered presumed victims before the Merits Report is issued. Once the Commission has issued this Report, only the persons included in it can be considered presumed victims. These considerations are applicable to the situation of the family members of Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe because, although the Commission was provided with evidence that sought to substantiate their condition of presumed victims, they were not included in the Merits Report, even in the summary of the position of the petitioners concerning the different violations that were alleged. 28 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 J. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 23. 29 Article 35(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure stipulates that “[w]hen it has not been possible to identify one or more of the alleged victims of the facts of the case because it concerns massive or collective violations, the Court shall decide whether to consider those individuals as victims.” Cf. Case of García and family members v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2012 Series C No. 258, para. 34, and Case of J. v. Peru, para. 23. Mutatis mutandi, under the Court’s previous Rules of Procedure: Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 110, and Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 13, 2011. Series C No. 234, para. 42. 30 Cf. Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, para. 65, and Case of J. v. Peru, para. 23. 31 Following the issue of Admissibility Report No. 33/07, and more than two years before the issue of the Merits Report, Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe’s representative forwarded evidence to the Commission for its consideration in relation to why the members of Mr. Ancalaf’s family should be considered presumed victims of a possible violation of human rights in a brief that the Commission asserts was forwarded to Chile, and the State has not contested this (file of annexes to the Merits Report 176/10, appendix 1, folios 2095 to 2099). 32 Case of García and family members v. Guatemala, para. 35, and Case of J. v. Peru, para. 24. 13