alleged to have violated treaty-based rights and related to the presumed expulsions could not have affected these persons. Therefore, given that the arguments concerning these persons relate to the said expulsions [or, in the case of Victor Manuel Jean and Jessica Jean, the events that occurred are not mentioned], the Court will not examine the facts in relation to them. 94. The Court also notes that, as the State indicated, Kimberly Medina Ferreras was not presented as a presumed victim by either the Commission or the representatives; hence the Court will not consider her as such. 95. Lastly, in relation to the person identified in the Merits report as “María Esther Medina Matos,” and “María Esthel Matos Medina” according to documentation issued by the State’s entities, 70 as the State asserted, this person does not appear as the mother of Rafaelito Pérez Charles in the respective legal document. 71 As the representatives have accepted (supra para. 75), and also Rafaelito Pérez Charles himself in his statement, these documents record that Rafaelito’s mother is a person named “Cle[s]ineta” Charles, who was not mentioned as a victim in the Merits report. Although the Court take note of the representatives’ explanation about the “ties of affection” that exists between María Esthel Matos Medina and Rafaelito Pérez Charles, the facts presented by the Merits report do not refer to these ties of affection, but rather indicate Mrs. “Matos Medina” as the “mother” of Rafaelito Pérez Charles, a circumstance that the Court is unable to consider proved. Consequently, the Court will not consider María Esthel Matos Medina one of the presumed victims in this case. Furthermore, based on its arguments (supra para. 67), the State is right that the connection of the persons identified in the Merits report as Jairo Pérez Medina and Gimena Pérez Medina to Rafaelito Pérez Charles has not been proved, so that they will not be considered presumed victims. 96. Regarding the person identified in the Merits report as Andrea Alezy, the representatives and the State agree that the former waived the possibility of presenting arguments with regard to her. Even though the Merits report indicates that this person is a victim, in view of the failure to provide the Court with any probative elements concerning her, the Court is prevented from examining the respective facts. Therefore, the Court will not rule on Andrea Alezy. In addition, the Court has already established that the alleged expulsion of Benito Tide falls outside its competence (supra para. 44). This prevents the Court from ruling on supposed facts and violations of rights with regard to Benito Tide, and also in relation to the members of his family named in the Merits report: Carmen, Aíta, Domingo, Rosa, José and Teresita, all surnamed Méndez. Moreover, in the brief submitting the case, the Commission did not ask the Court to declare violations of treaty-based rights to the detriment of these family members. B) The factual framework B.1. Arguments of the parties and the Commission 97. The State alleged that some of the facts alleged by the representatives were not included in the Merits report and, therefore, asked that the Court declare their 70 Cf. Sheet with general information on María Esthel Matos Medina, issued by the Central Electoral Board, based on its master list of those registered, on June 21, 2006, and birth certificate of María Esthel Matos Medina, issued by the Central Electoral Board on August 9, 1997 (file of annexes to the Merits report, annex 38, fs. 330 and 331). 71 Cf. Birth certificate of Rafaelito Pérez Charles issued by the Central Electoral Board on June 13, 1997 (file of annexes to the Merits report, annex 38, f. 328). 31