of Procedure. 28 The Court notes that this case does not involve one of the circumstances established in the said Article 35(2) that could justify the identification of presumed victims following the Merits Report or the submission of the case. 35. In this regard, the Court emphasizes that the representatives must identify all of the presumed victims during the proceedings before the Commission and avoid doing so following the issue of the Merits Report mentioned in Article 50 of the Convention, as in this case. This is because, when issuing the said report, the Commission should have all the information required to determine the issues of fact and law in the case, including those who it should consider as victims, which did not occur in this case. 36. In accordance with the provisions of Article 35(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, in its brief submitting the case, the Inter-American Commission indicated that the presumed victims in this case were Edgar Fernando García, his wife, Nineth Varenca Montenegro Cottom, his daughter, Alejandra García Montenegro, and his mother, María Emilia García. Nevertheless, the Commission noted that, following the notification of Report No. 117/10, the representatives had indicated that Mario Alcides Polanco Pérez and Andrea Polanco Montenegro should also be considered victims (supra para. 3). In their motions and arguments brief, the representatives identified Edgar Fernando García, María Emilia García, Nineth Varenca Montenegro Cottom and Alejandra García Montenegro as victims. However, they asked that the measure of psychological rehabilitation be provide to Mario Alcides Polanco and Andrea Polanco Montenegro also. The State opposed the inclusion of these persons as presumed victims; although, in its answering brief, it accepted to provide psychological care to Andrea Polanco Montenegro. 37. Pursuant to the above-mentioned case law criteria, the Court finds it desirable to clarify that the additional family members indicated by the representatives will not be considered as presumed victims in this case. Therefore, the Court declares that the following persons will be considered presumed victims in this case: Edgar Fernando García, Nineth Varenca Montenegro Cottom, Alejandra García Montenegro and María Emilia García. VI EVIDENCE 38. Based on the provisions of Articles 50, 57, and 58 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as on its case law regarding evidence and its assessment, 29 the Court will examine and assess the documentary probative elements forwarded by the parties at different procedural moments, the statements and testimonies provided by affidavit and during the public hearing before the Court, and also the helpful evidence incorporated ex officio by the Court (infra para. 44). To this end, the Court will abide by the principles of sound judicial discretion, within the corresponding legal framework. 30 A) Documentary and testimonial evidence 28 Mutatis mutandi, under the Court’s previous Rules of Procedure, Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra, para. 110, and Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay. Merits Reparations and costs. Judgment of October 13, 2011. Series C No. 234, para. 42. 29 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, paras. 69 to 76, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, supra, para. 31. 30 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, supra, para. 76, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, supra, para. 31. 14