60 236. Some of the representatives asked that family members also be held as victims of human rights violations in the instant case. The Court recalls in this regard that article 35(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure stipulates that the case shall be presented through the submission of the Report on Merits, which should “identify the alleged victims.” It corresponds to the Commission, and not to the Court, to identify precisely the alleged victims in a case before the Court,216 so that after the Merits Report it is no longer possible to add new alleged victims. The only exception is the specific circumstance addressed in article 35(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure,217 which is not applicable in this case as it refers to situations in which “it has not been possible to identify one or more of the alleged victims who figure in the facts of the case because it concerns massive or collective violations.” Therefore, under this article 35, which is clear and unambiguous, it is the jurisprudence constante of this Court that the alleged victims must be identified in the Merits Report issued pursuant to Article 50 of the Convention.218 B. Measures of restitution requested B.1 Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 237. The Commission recommended in its Merits Report that the State of Argentina grant the 20 victims full reparations, and most particularly, adequate compensation, for the violations declared in this judgment. It stated in its final observations that although “the repeal of the Code of Military Justice [in 2008] marks considerable progress as a measure toward non-recurrence of the violations committed in this case, still pending is comprehensive redress for the victims who suffered violations of their rights as a direct consequence of having been subject to the proceedings lodged against them under the Code.” 238. Representatives Vega and Sommer pled on behalf of Mr. Maluf, Mr. Pérez, Mr. Galuzzi and Mr. Óbolo, that they should be reinstated into the Argentine Air Force in the status of “effective withdrawal” two ranks higher than the grade they would have held if they had continued with their military careers, plus retirement rights and benefits, as well as the free access to retirement benefits that officers and junior officers receive from the institutions of the armed forces. They also requested restoration of civil and political rights. 239. Representatives De Vita and Cueto pled the following redress for the applicants Mr. Pontecorvo, Mr. Candurra, Mr. Di Rosa, Mr. Machín and Mr. Arancibia: (a) that the full and permanent disqualification be lifted, thus restoring their political rights to vote and be elected; (b) that the blocks and disqualification on business and banking activities be lifted and (c) that the applicants “holding the status of effective withdrawal” be reinstated at the grade level 216 Cfr. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, par. 98, and Case of Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, par. 47. 217 Article 35(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court says, “[w]hen it has not been possible to identify one or more of the alleged victims who figure in the facts of the case because it concerns massive or collective violations, the Tribunal shall decide whether to consider those individuals as victims.” Cfr. Case of García and family members v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2012. Series C No. 258, par. 34, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, Members and Activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile, par. 29. 218 Cfr. Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, par. 65, and Case of expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 282, par. 29.