19 the alleged direct victims in the case, as well as 97 (sic) families that they included in a list attached to their brief. In this regard, they argued that the “negative effects of the persecution, forced displacement, the prevailing fear [and] the time elapsed, are factors that made it difficult to submit to the Commission […] the list of survivors of the massacres.” 60. In their brief of observations to the preliminary objections, submitted on June 26, 2015, the representatives requested that all members and families of the village of Chichupac and neighboring communities of Rabinal be classified as victims. They attached a new list of 39 families that they requested be included as alleged victims of forced displacement. Subsequently, in a communication of April 19, 2016, the representatives submitted 212 birth, marriage and death certificates of alleged victims who had suffered persecution, forced displacement and being uprooted. In their final written arguments, and together with the helpful evidence submitted to the Court, the representatives presented a general list that “encompasses the largest number” of alleged victims and their next of kin, as well as a list of alleged victims of forced displacement who returned to their communities after March 9, 1987, or who still remain in a situation of displacement. They also asked that “the possibility of future identifications of victims [...] be left open and that an effective mechanism for identifying victims of displacement […] be created.” 61. At the public hearing and in its final written arguments, the Commission emphasized the importance of applying Article 35(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, allowing the inclusion of one or more alleged victims not expressly named in the Merits Report. 62. In its answering brief and final written arguments, the State argued that the addition of victims by the representatives is time-barred and groundless, and therefore asked the Court not to admit them. 36 B. Considerations of the Court 63. Article 35(1) of the Rules of Procedure establishes that a case shall be submitted to the Court through the presentation of the Merits Report of the Commission, which shall contain “the identification of the alleged victims.” In accordance with this rule, it is the Commission's responsibility, and not this Court's, to identify the alleged victims in a case before the Court with precision and at the proper procedural opportunity. Legal certainty requires, as a general rule, that all the alleged victims be duly identified in the Merits Report, and it is not possible to add new alleged victims after the Report, except in the exceptional circumstance contemplated in Article 35(2) of the Court's Rules of Procedure. 64. According to the aforementioned Article 35(2) of the Rules of Procedure, “[w]hen it has not been possible to identify one or more of the alleged victims of the facts of the case because it concerns massive or collective violations, the Court shall decide in due course whether to consider them as victims.” In its case law on this matter, the Court has considered the application of Article 35(2) of the Rules of Procedure based on the particular characteristics of each case, 37 36 In its briefs of July 30, and September 14, 2015, the State reiterated its objection to the inclusion of new alleged victims. The State’s presentation of the brief of July 30, 2015, entitled “Position of the State of Guatemala regarding the inclusion of new victims in the case […],”is not provided for in the Rules of Procedure of the Court. Therefore, the arguments set forth in said brief are time-barred and will not be taken into account. Likewise, in order to guarantee the possibility of adversarial proceedings, in a note from the Secretariat dated August 4, 2015, the representatives and the Commission were asked to submit any observations they deemed pertinent to the State’s brief. However, since said brief is not part of the proceeding, the Court will not take into account the observations of the representatives and the Commission on this point, submitted in their briefs of August 30 and 31, 2015, respectively. Furthermore, in its brief of observations to the final lists of declarants of the Commission and the representatives, submitted on September 14, 2015, the State again presented arguments regarding the inclusion of other alleged victims. These arguments will not be considered by the Court either, because this was not the appropriate procedural moment to do so. 37 It should be noted that the Court has applied Article 35(2) of its Rules in the following cases: Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, paras. 48 to 51; Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 24, 2012. Series C No. 251, paras. 29 to 37; Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and Nearby Places v. El Salvador, paras. 49 to 57; Case of the Displaced Afrodescendant Communities of the