12 alleging that the members of her family were the victims of harassment, persecution and threats, and that, on November 16, 2005, it granted precautionary measures in favor of Elvira Franco Sandoval, Leonel Enrique Veliz Franco, José Roberto Franco Sandoval and Cruz Elvira Sandoval Polanco.15 Nevertheless, the Merits Report reveals that the said indication appeared in a section describing the “proceedings before the C[ommission],” and not as part of the facts considered pertinent in relation to the merits of the matter. Thus, the Court considers that the above-mentioned factual allusions of the representative do not explain, clarify or reject the facts presented by the Inter-American Commission in its Merits Report, but rather introduce new elements that are not part of the factual framework of this case. Consequently, the Court will not take these facts into consideration. C. Determination of the presumed victims 28. In the submission brief, the Commission asked the Court to declare the international responsibility of the State for the violation of the rights of María Isabel Veliz Franco; her mother, Rosa Elvira Franco Sandoval; her brothers, Leonel Enrique Veliz Franco and José Roberto Franco, and her now deceased grandparents, Cruz Elvira Sandoval Polanco de Franco and Roberto Franco Pérez. In the Merits Report, the Commission declared violations to rights of all those mentioned. The representative also asked the Court to establish violations to rights of these six persons. In the context of its arguments on the alleged violations, the State indicated that: The [initial] petition [lodged before the Commission] referred to and presented María Isabel Veliz Franco and her mother, Rosa Elvira Franco Sandoval, as victims; in the Admissibility Report, the Commission declared that it would examine the case for violations presumably committed against them[. …] Surprisingly, […] the Merits Report […] declared that the State had violated […] rights of [the above-named members of María Isabel Veliz Franco’s family]. This violates the State’s right to defense, because it was not aware from the start of the arguments on the basis of which, supposedly, there were other collateral victims. 29. The presumed victims must be indicated in the Merits Report issued by the Commission under Article 50 of the Convention.16 Article 35(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure establishes that the case shall be submitted to the Court by the presentation of this report, which must contain “the identification of the presumed victims.” According to this article, it is for the Commission and not the Court to identify the presumed victims in a case before the Court precisely and at the appropriate procedural opportunity.17 30. The Court notes that María Isabel Veliz Franco’s brothers and grandparents were indicated as victims in the Merits Report, pursuant to the said Article 35(1) of the Rules of Procedure (supra para. 2.c.i). Consequently, the State’s argument concerning the failure to identify the victims is inadmissible. Furthermore, it should be indicated that although some members of María Isabel’s family were not named in the initial petition or in the Admissibility Report,18 violations to the detriment of her two brothers and her grandparents were alleged in several of the representative’s briefs that were forwarded to the State during the processing of the case before the Commission, 19 and the State was made aware 15 Cf. Merits Report No. 170/11, supra. 16 This has been the Court’s consistent case law since the Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, paras. 65 to 68, and the Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, paras. 224 and 225. These judgments were adopted by the Court during the same session. In application of the Court’s new Rules of Procedure, this criterion has been ratified since the case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Cf. Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 237, footnote 215, and Case of J., supra, para. 23. 17 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, and Case of J., supra, para. 23. 18 19 Cf. Admissibility Report No. 92/06, supra. In this regard, the briefs of the representatives (at the time, the petitioners) of May 31, 2008, and June 4, 2009, may be cited as an example. During the proceedings before the Commission, the State also examined and presented arguments on the representatives’ claim that the said six persons be considered victims. This is revealed