IV – PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS 23. Before examining the pertinent facts and the application of the norms of the American Convention to those facts, some preliminary considerations must be made concerning the determination of the presumed victims, the delimitation of the factual framework, and certain arguments that were presented belatedly. A) Determination of the presumed victims 24. The common interveners of the representatives asked the Court to consider as presumed victims persons who had not been considered as such by the Inter-American Commission in the Merits Report. The Court will now summarize the arguments of the parties in this regard and explain why the Court will only consider as victims the persons mentioned as such in the Merits Report. 1. Arguments of the parties 25. In its motions and arguments brief, CEJIL included as presumed victims the wife and children of presumed victim Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe, considering that Chile had violated their rights recognized in Articles 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) and 17 (Rights of the Family) of the Convention. Regarding the fact that the Commission had not included these family members as presumed victims, CEJIL indicated that “approximately two years before the Merits Report was approved, […] the petitioners for Víctor Ancalaf Llaupe had advised the InterAmerican Commission that the members of the Ancalaf family had been affected by the facts of this case, […] describing the problems that each one had suffered” and requesting that they be considered presumed victims. In its final written arguments, CEJIL insisted that it had provided the Commission with this information at the appropriate procedural opportunity and that it had repeated it when requesting that the case be submitted to the Court. It added that “[t]he InterAmerican Court has the opportunity to rectify the Commission’s serious omission,” and maintained that the State’s right of defense had not been breached because “it has been able to examine and respond to – if it so wished – the arguments of this party in relation to the status as victims of [Mr.] Ancalaf’s family.” 26. In its motions and arguments brief, the FIDH stated that “the next of kin of the [presumed] direct victims of the case […] are also [presumed] victims, owing to the [supposed] violation of Article 5 of the American Convention, which was alleged with regard to them at the appropriate opportunity.” The FIDH submitted to the Court a list in which it individualized the family members of six of the presumed victims. The FIDH also stated that, “[i]f the next of kin identified above are not considered victims in this case, it asked […] the Court to urge the State to make reparation to them.” In addition, the FIDH asked that “Juan Carlos Huenulao Llelmil, a Mapuche who was convicted of the same facts that are the grounds for the instant case be considered a beneficiary of reparations.” It indicated that, “even though [Mr. Huenulao Llelmil] was not considered a victim before the Inter-American Commission, this does not prevent him from being considered a victim before the Court,” in view of the fact that “the State is fully aware of his existence and his situation,” because “he was deprived of liberty in the same way as the other victims in this case and for the same events on which this case is founded.” 27. The State did not present any arguments in relation to the determination of the presumed victims in this case before the Court. 2. Considerations of the Court a. Family members of the presumed victims 28. In its Merits Report the Commission named Segundo Aniceto Norín Catrimán, Pascual Huentequeo Pichún Paillalao, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, José Huenchunao Mariñán, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, Juan Ciriaco Millacheo Licán, Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe and Patricia 12