22 litigation,” but specified that “Mr. Marino Huamaní Vergara continues to be a victim of the case, regardless of his participation or not as a declarant.” 62. As it has done in previous cases, 47 the Court takes into account the wishes of the alleged victim identified in the Commission’s Admissibility and Merits Report. In this case, the Court considers that the will of Marino Huamaní Vergara, expressed through his representatives, is to continue as an alleged victim in the case and, consequently, it will consider him as such. C. Inadmissibility of new facts and/or arguments presented by the representatives of the alleged victims not raised by the Commission in its Admissibility and Merits Report: alleged violation of the right to property and the prohibition of arbitrary interference in family life (Articles 21 and 11(2) of the American Convention) C.1. Arguments of the parties and the Commission 63. The State pointed out that the Commission failed to comply with Article 35(3) of the Rules of Procedure, since “did not specify which of the facts contained in the [Merits] Report it submitted to the consideration of the Court.” It also argued that the Commission did not emphasize the alleged theft of animals in section “A. Considerations as to Fact: Established Facts” of its Admissibility and Merits Report, nor did it consider the matter in its “Considerations as to Law.” However, the facts presented by the representatives in their pleadings and motions brief that could constitute violations of Articles 21 and 11(2) of the Convention, would be substantially greater than those established by the Commission, and cannot be considered as facts that explain, contextualize or clarify the facts considered as proven by the Commission in its Admissibility and Merits Report. In view of the foregoing, it indicated that this preliminary objection should be declared admissible and asked the Court “remove from the present proceedings the entire set of facts” set forth in the pleadings and motions brief “aimed at proving the alleged violation of the right to property and the [alleged] interference in the private and family life of the alleged victims, since it does not respect the delimitation of the factual framework considered by the [Commission].” 64. The Commission argued that the State's position could not be reviewed without analyzing the merits of the case, particularly the facts that were considered proven by the Commission in its Report on Admissibility and Merits. Nevertheless, it recalled that in said Report, both in the position of the petitioners and in the subsequent paragraphs, reference was made to the theft of livestock and to facts that can reasonably be understood to have been explained and clarified by the representatives. Therefore, it asked the Court to dismiss this “preliminary objection” filed by the State. 65. The representatives asked the Court to dismiss the State’s request and to admit the facts presented by the Commission and the petitioners in their entirety, for their eventual analysis in the merits stage, since the facts that would support the violations of the right to property were duly included and documented in the Commission’s Admissibility and Merits Report. They pointed out that the Commission included “diverse information and citations in its Report with reference to the violations of the victims’ right to property, including several specific references to the [CVR] Final Report and the domestic judicial files of the case.” They added that, in their arguments, the representatives did not stray from the version of the facts described in the Commission’s Report and its annexes and, in any case, the sources they cited were incorporated as annexes to the Commission’s Report. In this regard, they explained that they have cited these same annexes verbatim, while the Commission presented a summarized version of these, attached to its Report. However, there is no justification whatsoever for the exclusion 47 Cf. Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela, supra, para. 31, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru, supra, para. 31.