12 . VI PRIOR CONSIDERATIONS A) Alleged victims 41. The representatives argued that the next of kin of the alleged victims “shall also be considered victims” and that they have been caused “a considerable non-pecuniary damage,” reason for which they requested that several of the next of kin be considered beneficiaries of reparations. Neither the Commission nor the State have issued a ruling in this sense. 42. In relation to the possibility of participation of the alleged victims, their next of kin, or representatives in the cases before this Tribunal, the Court has determined that it is not admissible to allege new facts, different from those presented in the application, without detriment to setting forth those that may explain, clarify or reject the facts that have been mentioned in the application, or be consistent with the claims of the plaintiff. Additionally, facts considered supervening may be forwarded to the Tribunal at any stage of the proceeding before judgment has been delivered. 29 Similarly, the alleged victims and their representatives may invoke the violation of rights different to those already included in the application, as long as they refer to the facts included in the latter.30 43. Regarding the alleged victims of a case, the Court has established that they must be mentioned in the application and in the report issued by the Commission in the terms of Article 50 of the Convention. Additionally, pursuant with Article 33(1) of the Rules of Procedure, it corresponds to the Commission and not to this Tribunal to identify the alleged victims with precision and on the due procedural opportunity.31 Therefore, the Court only considers as alleged victims of the present case the 20 people identified by the Commission as being in that condition. B) Facts and arguments 44. The parties have presented arguments regarding the facts of the present case and the context in which they occurred, as well as other arguments of fact and law directed to invalidating the arguments of the other parties, which are not object of the proceedings before this Tribunal. 45. In consideration of the aforementioned, the Court considers it appropriate to indicate the facts it will take into account in this Judgment. B.1 Facts presented by the parties 29 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners” V. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 154; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. V. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 174, and Case of Heliodoro Portugal V. Panama, supra note 26, para. 228. 30 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners” V. Peru, supra note 29, para. 155; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. V. Colombia, supra note 29, para. 174, and Case of Heliodoro Portugal V. Panama, supra note 27, para. 228. Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres V. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, 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 Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez V. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 224. 31