7 have been subjected before being deprived of their life, the Court does not find any elements to modify, in the instant case, the Inter-American Commission’s conclusions put forward in its Report on the Admissibility and Merits9. Therefore, the Court will not proceed to the analysis of the said alleged facts. * * * 22. The State did not condition its partial acknowledgement of responsibility to a particular number of persons, nor did it specify the persons to the detriment of whom the acknowledged violations of the Convention had been committed. 23. With regard to Article 27 of the Convention, the Commission alleged the violation of the said provision in general terms without identifying specific victims on this matter. As for Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, the Commission requested that the Court declare the responsibility of the State for the violation of those provisions, but did not clearly specify in its application the persons to the detriment of whom these violations of the Convention would have been committed, although it can certainly be deduced from its arguments that it would be to the detriment of the alleged victims’ family members. 24. Regarding the said aknowledgement of responsibility for the violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, it is necessary to specify that when it expressed such aknowledgement, the State knew that the Commission had included in its application a list of beneficiaries of 24 persons as family members of Mr. Zambrano, Mr. Caicedo Cobeña and Mr. Caicedo Cobeña 10. The State also knew that the representatives presented in their brief on pleadings and motions a list of family members which corresponded to those included in the application. 25. In turn, the State was also aware that the Commission submitted an affidavit from Ms. Jessica Marlene Baque Rodríguez after the lodging of the application and the Order from the President (supra para 7), but prior to the public hearing. The Commission pointed out that after “corroborating the existence of family members of the victims which were not initially included [in the application]”, it was submitting the statement of Ms. Baque, who was “Mr. Wilmer Zambrano Velez’s foster daughter” and has been eyewitness of the facts in the instant case, “in order to provide [… the] Court greater evidentiary elements to establish the truth about the events” and “for [any] relevant purposes”. Since her statement had not been ordered by the President and following his instructions, the representatives and the State were informed of the possibility to present any comments they would deem relevant. The representatives requested that the said statement be accepted, on the grounds of the same arguments as presented by the Commission. The State did not present any comments. On the other hand, the representatives also informed the Court, before the public hearing, that Christian Eduardo Zambrano Ruales was the son of Mr. Wilmer Zambrano Vélez. In their final written arguments, the representatives included Ms. Jessica Marlene Baque Rodríguez as well as Mr. Christian Eduardo Zambrano Ruales in the list of the family members of the alleged victims and submitted the birth certificate of the latter. 26. In accordance with article 33(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, it lies upon the Commission to precisely identify the alleged victims in a case. Ms. Jessica Marlene Baque Rodríguez and Mr. Christian Eduardo Zambrano Ruales were not identified as victims in the Commission’s application. However, the Tribunal points out that the State neither disputed the status as victims of the family members mentioned by the Commission and the representatives, nor did it dispute 9 Cf. Case of Bueno Alves, supra note 8, paras. 61-67. 10 Those persons are the partners and child of the alleged deceased victims.