30 under the provisions of Article 50 of the Convention. Thus, pursuant to Article 33(1) of the Rules of Procedure, it is the duty of the Commission, and not of this Court, to accurately identify the alleged victims in a case tried by the Court.14 However, in certain cases where such identification has not been made, the Court has considered as victims certain persons not included as such in the application, provided the right to defense of the parties and alleged victims has been respected and the alleged victims are related to the facts described in the applications and the evidence filed with the Court.15 73. This Court shall apply the following criteria to define who will be considered alleged victims and their next of kin in the instant case: a) the procedural stage when they were identified; b) the acquiescence of liability by the State; c) the evidence submitted; and d) the particular characteristics of the instant case. 74. In this case, the Court has deemed it necessary to make a thorough and deep examination of the evidence submitted by the Commission and the representatives, as well as to request additional documents as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case, in order to gather the elements necessary for the accurate identification of the alleged victims. Upon said examination, the Court has found the different situations described in the above paragraphs (supra paras. 67 to 71). 75. Regarding to Luz Beatriz, Gustavo and Ronald Daniel, all of them Taboada-Fierro, and Saturnina Julia and Celestino Eugencio, both with the surname Rosales-Cárdenas, whose kinship with the alleged victims has not been proved (supra para. 67), this Court finds that said persons were included as next of kin of the alleged victims both in the applications and in the written closing arguments of the Commission. Besides, it is worth pointing out that the State has not objected to the determination of the next of kin of the alleged victims proposed by the Commission. Consequently, said persons will be considered alleged victims in the instant case. 76. As regards Zorka Milushka Muñoz-Rodríguez (supra para. 68), through a note of the Secretariat dated October 24, 2006 (supra para. 33), the Commission and the representatives were requested to inform the reasons why she was not included in the lists of the application and of the brief of requests and arguments and, if applicable, to send the documents proving her kinship or her death. On October 31, 2006, the Commission “acknowledge[d] that, due to an involuntary mistake, the list contained in the application did not include" said person, and the representatives stated that they had not included her since the other next of kin had lost any contact with her. Finally, the Commission and the representatives included her name when submitting their closing arguments in writing and, furthermore, the representatives filed her birth certificate as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case. The Court states that although the Commission did not include her in the list of next of kin attached to the application, it submitted, together with the corresponding appendixes, the document abovementioned where she is declared heir. Same circumstances apply to the parents of Felipe Flores-Chipana (supra para. 68). As stated above, (supra para. 72), it is the Commission, and not the Court, that must accurately identify the alleged victims in a case submitted to the Court. However, the Court shall 14 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 1, para. 29; and Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 8, para. 98. Cf. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 1, para. 29, and Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 8, para. 91; and Case of Acevedo-Jaramillo et al. Judgment of February 7, 2006. Series C No. 144, para. 227. 15