29 not contested, but rather that they question the probative value of the expert reports, which are to be considered in the applicable corresponding chapters of the present Judgment. On the other hand, in regard to the statements made that were outside of the scope of their expert opinion, the Court will consider the observations made by the parties and reiterates that it will only admit the statements that are within the established limits (supra paras. 52 and 53). 76. In particular, regarding the observations on the methodology of Mr. Endo’s expert report, without failing to consider that expressed by the State, the Court notes that said expert report provides an explanation on the procedure used. The expert noted that the structure of the expert opinion consists of three distinct parts, while the first two refer to the analysis of the harm on specific family members, whom are identified in the report, the third part emphasized the psychological harm of a repetitive nature affecting more than one family member, seeking to identify the repetitive nature of the harm. In order to elaborate a part of the expert report, he in-person interviewed specific family members, and in other circumstances there were no encounters between the expert and the next of kin, but rather, all of the analysis was carried out via their affidavits. The Court does not consider that the objections to the method used by the expert, which is sufficiently explained in the report, affect its admissibility. In effect, the fact that the expert combined the in-person interviews of four family members with the analysis of the declarations rendered before a public notary of twenty family members, does not discredit the validity of his report, given that the purpose of the expert opinion defined in the Order of the President (supra para. 52, numeral 32) did not establish a specific method or the obligation to individualize the analysis. Lastly, the Court takes into account the considerations raised by the State regarding the methodology used by the expert Uprimny in some of the statements of his report. Notwithstanding the aforementioned, the Court does not admit the documents that the State incorporated in its final written arguments (supra para. 64). Based on the foregoing, the Court admits the indicated expert opinions, in as much as they are within the scope of that which was ordered and will assess them together with the rest of the body of evidence, taking into account the observations of the parties, in conformity with the rules of sound judgment. VI PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS ON THE NEXT OF KIN INDICATED AS ALLEGED VICTIMS 77. The Commission and the representatives indicated as alleged victims, the specific next of kin of those allegedly disappeared persons and of Mrs. Maria Lúcia Petit da Silva. Nevertheless, there are differing situations related to the identification of the next of kin as alleged victims in the present case, namely: a) 133 (one hundred and thirty three) persons were indicated as alleged victims in the report on the merits and in the application of the Commission; b) 107 (one hundred and seven) persons were included as alleged victims for the first time in the application, and c) 40 (forty) persons were mentioned for the first time in such condition in a list attached to the brief of pleadings and motions. 78. Brazil affirmed to be in agreement with the Court’s criteria regarding the determination of the alleged victims in a case before the Court. It recalled that the alleged victims should be noted in the application and in the report of the Commission, pursuant to Article 50 of the Convention. It affirmed that it corresponds to the Commission and not the Court, to identify the alleged victims in a case before the Court in the opportune procedural moment.