95. In the interest of procedural economy and greater clarity, the Court considers it best to deal with these arguments by the State before examining the facts of the case 66 because, if they are admitted, there would be no grounds to begin examining the alleged violations of this person’s Convention-based rights. For the same reasons and to this end, the Court will also examine here the State’s information and arguments, which are closely related to identifying the alleged victims of the case. In so doing, it will follow established criteria for weighing evidence, as will be discussed below (infra paras. 129 to 131). 96. In the case of Lucinda Rojas Landa, the Court understands that the State is questioning her status as the domestic partner or common-law spouse of Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez, and therefore, the Court must look to the evidence in the case file to determine whether she was his partner at the time of the facts and, thus, whether she can be considered a “family member”. 97. The Commission's Report on the Merits included Lucinda Rojas Landa as the domestic partner of Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez based on an expert opinion by forensic anthropology. The expert report from forensic anthropology includes Lucinda Rojas Landa as a person interviewed to collect anthropomorphic data on Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez67. This evidence, and the fact that Lucinda Rojas Landa appears as his live-in partner, led the Commission to conclude that she did indeed have a family tie to the alleged victim. The State, meanwhile, supplied further evidence in the form testimony delivered by Lucinda Rojas Landa in 2001, 68 in which she told of her relationship with Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez and the nature and the duration of that relationship. Her statement reveals that they had lived together “from the summer of 1993 until the month of June, 1994”, after which they saw each other sporadically every two months, and in December, 1995 Rojas Landa was arrested and was still in custody at the time of the facts of the instant case. 98. The Court, having heard the State’s arguments, finds that the expert opinion from forensic anthropology, reporting an interview with Lucinda Rojas Landa, does not serve to demonstrate that she was the domestic partner of Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez; although Lucinda Rojas Landa is indeed named in the opinion as cohabiting with him, the document does not at any time develop or explain the relationship, but merely assumes it. The Court holds that this evidence brought by the Commission cannot lead to the conclusion that there was a family bond between the two at the time of the facts. The Court also agrees with the State that the the statement rendered by Lucinda Rojas Landa does not verify a family bond because there is no clear indication that she was Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez’ partner at the time of the facts. Furthermore, even beyond the question of whether the evidence demonstrates a family tie, the Commission did not submit any other evidence to demonstrate possible injury to the rights of Lucinda Rojas Landa. The Court therefore finds that the State is correct that there is no verification of a family bond between Lucinda Rojas Landa and Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez at the time of the facts, and consequently she will not be held an alleged victim in the instant case. Cf. Case of expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 282, para. 59. 66 Cf. Expert opinion No. 390-2001 of forensic anthropology, July 24, 2001 (evidence file, volume I, annex 7 to the case submission, folios 600 to 605). 67 Cf. Statement delivered by Lucinda Rojas Landa to the Specialized Provincial Prosecutor, March 9, 2001 (evidence file, volume XXXI, annex 7 to the State’s final written arguments, folio 21075). 68