the specifics of each case and the rights in respect of which a violation has been alleged, provided that the States’ right to defense is respected. They added that the Court has also “considered sufficient, as regards the determination of the beneficiaries of the reparations,” the “fact that the Court had been informed of their existence, at least indirectly, in the attachments to the application.” 276. The State argued that “the only beneficiaries should be those named by the Commission in the Merits Report.” However, the State left it up to the Court to “determine and individualize the beneficiaries of the potential reparations.” 277. The Court emphasizes that, according to Article 35(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, the report referred to in Article 50 of the Convention must contain “all the facts that allegedly give rise to a violation and identify the alleged victims.” In this regard, it is up to the Commission and not up to the Court to precisely identify the presumed victims in a case before the Court at the appropriate procedural moment.437 In application of the new Rules of Procedure, this criterion has been ratified since the case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela.438 Consequently, the Court will not consider Diego Germán and Adrián Nicolás Furlan Sarto, the additional family members indicated by the representatives, as injured parties in this case, given that they were not considered as presumed victims in the Merits Report referred to in Article 50 of the American Convention. B) Comprehensive measures of reparation: rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantee of non-repetition 278. The Court stresses that the violations declared in the preceding chapters were committed to the detriment of a child and, subsequently, an adult with a disability, which means that the reparations awarded in the instant case must be in keeping with the social model relating to disability established in the international treaties on this matter (supra para. 133 to 135). This means that the measures of reparation do not focus exclusively on rehabilitation measures of a medical nature, but include measures that help persons with a disability overcome the obstacles or limitations imposed so that they can “achieve and maintain the maximum independence, physical, mental, social and vocational capacity, and full inclusion and participation in all aspects of life.” 439 B.1) Measures of rehabilitation Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 279. The Commission requested that Sebastián “be given access to medical and other treatment in reputable specialized care centers, or the means to access this type of care in private centers.” 280. The representatives indicated that “[h]aving regard to the non-pecuniary damages suffered by the presumed victims, it has become necessary that, with their consent, they be 437 Cf. Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”) v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2009. Series C. No. 198, para. 112 and Case of Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 24, 2012. Series C No. 239, para. 245. 438 Cf. Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 237, footnote 214. 439 Article 26 of the CRDP. 87