presumed victims have been destroyed by fire,33 or in cases in which entire families have been disappeared, so that nobody could speak on their behalf.34 It has also taken into account the difficulting of accessing areas in which the facts occurred,35 the absence of records of the inhabitants of a place,36 and the passage of time,37 as well as particular characteristics of the presumed victims in a case, for example, when they are part of family clans with similar first and last names,38 or in the case of migrants.39 It has also considered the State’s conduct, for example, when it is argued that the failure to investigate contributed to the incomplete identification of the presumed victims.40 48. The Court notes that, in its Merits Report, the Commission indicated that it did not have information on the identification of all the victims. Thus, the Court considers that the problems described in Article 35(2) of the Rules of Procedure regarding the identification of the presumed victims in cases of collective violations may be understood in this case based on: (i) the context of the case, (ii) the 20 years that have passed; (iii) the difficulty to contact the presumed victims owing to their situation of exclusion and vulnerability, and (iv) registration omissions that can be attributed to the State. 49. The Court considers that the specific characteristics of this case allow it to conclude that there are reasonable grounds to justify the fact that the list of presumed victims included in the Commisson’s Admissibility and Merits Report may contain possible inconsistencies both in the full identification of the presumed victims and in their representation. Therefore, the Court decides to apply Article 35(2) of its Rules of Procedure and, when examining the merits of the case, it will determine the appropriate measures in this regard and the identification of the presumed victims if necessary. Consequently, the Court rejects the preliminary objections filed by the State concerning the identification and representation of the presumed victims, as well as the lack of a connection to the case of some of the presumed victims included in the Merits Report presented by the Commission. 50. Furthermore, the Court considers, notwithstanding the analysis it will make regarding determination of the presumed victims (infra para. 189), that examination of the evidence and the facts relating to verification of the working relationship between the presumed victims and the said hacienda corresponds to an analysis of the merits of this case. Therefore, the Court rejects the preliminary objection concerning the supposed absence of a connection to the facts of the case of some presumed victims. C. Alleged lack of jurisdiction ratione personae for violations in abstract terms C.1. Arguments of the State and observations of the Commission and of the representatives 33 Cf. Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and neighboring places, para. 30. 34 Cf. Case of the Río Negro Massacres, para. 48. Cf. Case of the Afrodescendant Communities Displaced from the Río Cacarica Basin (Operation Genesis), para. 41. 35 Cf. Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and neighboring places, para. 30, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres, para. 48. 36 Cf. Case of the Río Negro Massacres, para. 51, and Case of the Afrodescendant Communities Displaced from the Río Cacarica Basin (Operation Genesis), para. 41. 37 38 Cf. Case of the Río Negro Massacres, para. 48. 39 Cf. Case of Nadege Dorzema et al., para. 30. Cf. Case of the Río Negro Massacres, para. 48, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and neighboring places, para. 50. 40 15