33. Furthermore, the Court observes that the representatives clarified that Rose Marie Petit-Homme Estilien, Joseph Dol and Silvie Felizor correspond to the pseudonyms of these individuals identified by the Commission in its Merits Report38 (supra para. 27) and, as such, the situation does not increase the number of surviving presumed victims. 34. Regarding the eight persons announced by the representatives and the Commission as “other unidentified victims in the case, but supposedly named ab initio by the State” (supra para. 28),39 the Court notes that it has insufficient information to identify these individuals at this procedural stage, because there is no document among the evidence submitted by the parties that would allow the Court to determine clearly the name and other relevant details of the presumed victims, and their relationship to the facts of the case. Therefore, they will not be considered presumed victims in this Judgment. 35. Based on the above, the Court declares that the 13 people identified by the Commission40 and Noclair Florvilien will be considered as surviving presumed victims. 2. Request to increase the number of next of kin of the deceased presumed victims 36. The Court observes that, in addition to the 51 next of kin of those deceased individualized by the Commission in paragraph 104 of its Merits Report, the latter referred to a number of indeterminate and unnamed “children, siblings, and partners,” together with the names of the individualized next of kin. Specifically, in the case of Ilfaudia Dorzema, Jacqueline Maxime, Nadege Dorzema and Pardis Fortilus, the Commission referred to “children.” In the case of Máximo Rubén de Jesús Espinal, Nadege Dorzema and Pardis Fortilus, the Commission referred to “siblings.” Lastly, in the case of Roselene Therméus, the Commission referred to “companion.” Meanwhile, the representatives specified that Silvie Felizor, who is also a surviving presumed victim, is a sister of Roselene Therméus, deceased presumed victim. In this regard, the Court notes that a comparison of this information with the list of next of kin presented by the representatives reveals that the representatives individualized four siblings of Máximo Rubén de Jesús Espinal41 and a sister of Pardis Fortilus.42 However, in the case of Mrs. Fortilus, they also added her step-mother,43 without this hypothesis having been referred to in the list of next of kin in paragraph 104 of the Merits Report. Therefore, since the said persons were not duly individualized by the Commission in its Merits Report, the Court can only consider as presumed victims in the instant case the 51 next of kin who were identified by the Commission precisely and at the appropriate procedural occasion (infra Annex A). 3. Request to include the next of kin of the surviving victims as presumed victims 37. The representatives included on the list of presumed victims that they presented with their pleadings and motions brief 53 additional next of kin of some surviving presumed 38 Also known as Cecilia Petithomme/Estilien, Joseph Desravine or Maudire Felizor and Silvie Therméus, respectively. 39 “Favio Patra, Nianza Popele, Antonio Torres, Michel Marilin, Alfonso Ajise, Jose Luis, Manuel Bladimir and Zuñidla Neiba.” 40 Joseph Pierre, Selafoi Pierre, Sylvie Felizor, Roland Israel, Rose Marie Dol, Josué Maxime, Michel Françoise, Rose-Marie Petit-Homme/Estilien, Sonide Nora, Alphonse Oremis, Renaud Timat, Honorio Winique and Joseph Devraine (merits file, tome I, folio 34). 41 Amarilis Mercedes, Carmen Rosa, Jose Leonel and Jose Radhames (merits file, tome I, folio 194). 42 Rose Fortilus (merits file, tome I, folio 194). 43 Antoniette Sainphar (merits file, tome I, folio 194). 13