15 beneficiaries of the reparations. Nor the Commission or the State has made some comment in this regard. 50. As to the alleged victims of a case, the Court has established that they must be mentioned in the application and in the Commission’s report pursuant to Article 50 of the Convention Consequently, according to Article 33(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, it is the Commission, and not this Court, who must identify the alleged victims in a case, at the appropriate procedural opportunity.29 As a consequence, the Court only considers as alleged victims of this case the 44 people identified by the Commission as such. B) Admissibility of other briefs submitted by the representatives 51. By means of the brief received by the Secretariat on September 21, 2007, the representatives forwarded “Additional Information to the Autonomous Brief Containing Pleadings, Motions and Evidence”. In said brief, “in order to provide additional information to the context of the violations denounced”, the representatives mention other alleged facts that they consider to be in breach of human rights.30 These alleged facts coincide, moreover, with the facts established as grounds for a request of October 23, 2007 to expand the content of the provisional measures ordered by the Tribunal in the case of “Globovisión” Television Station (supra párrs. 21) made by the representatives of the beneficiaries of the measures, “on their own behalf, and on behalf of all the journalists, management, and other employees of Globovisión". 52. The Court considers that, even though such facts could be related to the facts and arguments presented in this case, those facts are not included as such in the application and they have been informed to the Tribunal by the representatives by means of an action that is not established in the Rules of Procedure for written procedure. Such facts might form part, besides, of other cases pending resolution at the domestic or international level. As a consequence, this Tribunal considers that such brief is inadmissible and the Tribunal shall not render a decision about the facts stated therein. 53. Following the presentation of the final written arguments, on July 18, 2008 the representatives filed a brief containing “observations to the final written arguments presented by the […] State”. Considering that such action is not established in the Rules of Procedure within the section on written procedure, and that the Tribunal has neither requested it, the Court shall not take into account the arguments put forward by the representatives in such brief, except for the observations that exclusively refer to the information provided by the State in its final written argument regarding the investigations and domestic procedures, since up to the moment the representatives have not exercise their right to defense in that regard (supra para 14 to 16). 29 Cf. Case of the “Ituango Massacres” v. Colombia, supra note 23, para. 98; Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 229; and Case of Chaparro Alvarez and Lapo Iñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 224. 30 The representatives put forward a series of arguments related, inter alia, to: “The abusive use of messages broadcast on the national radio and television network by the President of the Republic; the imposing of Government propaganda by the Venezuelan State in violation of Article 10 of the Radio and Television Social Responsibility Act; the indirect pressure and censure exercised by the Venezuelan State by not offering Globovisión contracts for official publicity and the indirect pressure exercised by the State by failing to grant the concessions and permits requested by Globovisión to expand its coverage.”