considered without first analyzing the merits of a case, they cannot be analyzed by means of a preliminary objection.22 34. Regarding this case, the Court considers that the claims presented as “preliminary objections” by the State refer to formal requirements for submission of the case and correspond to matters relating to the merits or, eventually, to the reparations, but do not affect the Court’s competence to hear this case. In other words, they are not a matter for preliminary objections. 35. Nevertheless, the Court considers, with regard to the first point, that the State has questioned, on the one hand, whether or not the requirements established in Article 35(1) and 35(2) of the Rules of Procedure concerning the identification of the presumed victims in the case was complied with, and this will be analyzed in the following chapter under Preliminary Considerations (infra Chapter VI). On the other hand, the State has questioned the status or condition of several persons as presumed victims, and this will be examined and decided by the Court in the chapter on reparations of this Judgment (infra paras. 420 to 435). 36. Regarding the second point, the Court notes that the affirmation made would entail a detailed analysis of the appropriateness and effectiveness of the measures implemented by the State to comply with the Commission’s recommendations in the Merits report. This must be analyzed, if pertinent, when establishing the reparations if the alleged violations of the Convention are verified. The third claim refers to matters concerning the admissibility of the evidence and not of the case itself, and was ruled on by the President of the Court in the Order of December 19, 2012.23 Lastly, it is not for the Court to rule in a preliminary manner on the factual framework of the case, because this analysis corresponds to its merits and, at that time, the State’s claims can be taken into account, if pertinent. VI PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS ON THE PRESUMED VICTIMS 37. In relation the State’s claim concerning the individualization of the persons who may be considered presumed victims in this case (supra para. 23), the Court notes that, in its brief submitting the case, the Commission indicated that, pursuant to Article 35 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, it attached Merits report 64/11, which included an annex on the identification of the presumed victims, with the names of 446 persons.24 However, in the same brief, the Commission indicated “that in a communication subsequent to the issue of the Merits report, the representatives of the victims presented an organized, revised and completed list of victims of forced displacement” and that, on “the said list they had included 26 new families of victims, who had not been able to be present at the time the first census was conducted.” This second list is included among the annexes from the proceedings before the Commission25 that were forwarded to the Court, and 497 persons appear on it.26 In addition, in a communication of 22 Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 39, and Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations, para. 25. 23 Cf. Case of Marino López Mena et al. (Operation Genesis) v. Colombia, Order of the President of the Court of December 19, 2012, considering paragraphs 37 to 39. 24 Neither Marino López nor the members of his family appear on that list, and it does not differentiate those who are women heads of household. 25 Cf. List of victims of forced displacement. Operation Genesis (evidence file, folios 7943 to 7969). This list was amended again by the Commission by a brief of September 13, 2011. 26 This new list had 65 additional persons, and excluded from the list six persons who were not displaced, and three whose names were repeated. An analysis of this second list shows that of the 65 persons that were added, 13 were already on the list that accompanied the Merits report. In addition, while several people have been added to the second list, they do not appear on the list of 65 additional persons presented by the representatives. Consequently, the Court is not clear about the exact number of persons who are added in the second list, or the reasons why changes 13