V PRIOR CONSIDERATION A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 35. The representatives requested that the Court also consider the sister of Márcia Barbosa de Souza as an alleged victim. They argued that, in this case, exceptional circumstances were present, in light of Article 35(2) of the Rules, which must be taken into account when determining the alleged victims. They indicated that at the time of Márcia Barbosa de Souza’s death, her sister Mt.B.S. was only 17 years old and that she participated in the judicial process over the years and witnessed the suffering of her parents due to the impunity surrounding the facts. They added that her distress had led her not to participate in the international proceedings, owing to the intense media coverage of the case, which resulted in the public exposure of Márcia Barbosa de Souza's life. Furthermore, they alleged that Ms. Mt.B.S. has been deeply affected by the events of this case because she, like her sister, is a black, poor, nordestina (northeastern) woman living in Brazil in a context of systematic violations against women and impunity in relation to these actions. They added that the inclusion of Mt.B.S. as an alleged victim would not affect the State’s right of defense because all of Márcia Barbosa de Souza’s relatives are victims of the same human rights violations, which result from the same facts. 36. The State argued that Márcia Barbosa de Souza’s sister, Mt.B.S., does not appear as an alleged victim in the Commission’s Merits Report, and therefore her inclusion by the representatives could only be accepted in exceptional circumstances, which are not present in the case sub judice. Therefore, it asked the Court to declare its lack of jurisdiction ratione personae with respect to the alleged victim Mt.B.S. 37. The Commission emphasized that, although it did not expressly identify Ms. Mt.B.S. in the Merits Report, it recognized that the violations of personal integrity extended to her relatives, and not exclusively to her two parents. It further argued that the application of Article 35(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure is not absolute, since the purpose of this rule is not to hinder the development of the process with formalisms, but to bring the definition given in the judgment closer to the demand for justice. Finally, it indicated that the violations of the right to personal integrity of Ms. Mt.B.S. as “a member of the family nucleus of the [alleged] victim, derive directly from the facts that are being analyzed by the Court and regarding which the State has exercised and has the opportunity to exercise its right of defense.” B. Considerations of the Court 38. According to the Court’s constant case law on this issue, Article 35(1) of its Rules of Procedure provides that the alleged victims must be identified in the Merits Report, in accordance with Article 50 of the American Convention. It is therefore incumbent upon the Commission to identify precisely and at the proper procedural moment the alleged victims in a case before the Court, except in the exceptional circumstances contemplated in Article 35(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. According to the latter, when it is justified that it was not possible to identify the alleged victims in cases of massive or collective violations, the Court shall decide in due course whether to consider them victims in accordance with the nature of the violation.29 Cf. Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 4, 2012. Series C No. 250, para. 48, and Case of Ríos Avalos et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 19, 2021. Series C No. 429, para. 15. 29 -13-