20 and IDHUCA indicated that in addition to the victims claimed by the Commission in its application, Ramón Mauricio García Prieto, his son Ramón Mauricio García Prieto Estrada, and his sisters María de los Ángeles García Prieto de Charur, Ile María del Carmen García Prieto Taghioff and Lourdes García Prieto de Patuzzo, should be considered victims as well (supra para. 8). The other brief containing pleadings and motions indicated that Carmen Alicia Estrada, Ramón Mauricio García Prieto Estrada, as well as the other next of kin of Mr. García Prieto, without specifying their names, (supra para. 7) should be considered as victims. Finally, in its written closing arguments of February 26, 2007, the Commission included Ramón Mauricio García Prieto Estrada, María de los Ángeles García Prieto de Charur, Ile María del Carmen García Prieto Taghioff and Lourdes García Prieto de Patuzzo as alleged victims. 65. The jurisprudence of this Tribunal with respect to the identification of victims has been broad and adjusted to the circumstances of the case. The victims should be indicated in the application and in the Commission’s Report on Merits issued in accordance with Article 50 of the Convention. Therefore, pursuant to Article 33(1) of the Rules of the Court, it is the Commission, and not this Tribunal, who should, at the appropriate time, precisely identify the alleged victims in a case before the Court.33 66. In accordance with the criteria expressed in the preceding paragraph, the Tribunal will analyze if the individuals identified in paragraph 64 can be included as alleged victims in the present case. The Court observes that it was not until the presentation of the written closing arguments that the Commission requested the incorporation of Ramón Mauricio García Prieto’s son and sisters as victims. 67. Given the above, the Tribunal observes that María de los Ángeles García Prieto de Charur, Ile María del Carmen García Prieto Taghioff, and Lourdes García Prieto de Patuzzo, sisters of Mr. García Prieto, and Ramón Mauricio García Prieto Estrada, his son, were not mentioned as victims in the Article 50 Report or in the application. 68. On this point, the Court has indicated that it is not admissible to allege new facts that differ from those in the Commission’s application, except for those that explain, clarify, or dispute the facts mentioned in the application, or answer the claims by the petitioner.34 Given the foregoing, the Court finds that the claims concerning Ramón Mauricio García Prieto’s sisters and son, María de los Ángeles García Prieto de Charur, Ile María del Carmen García Prieto Taghioff, Lourdes García Prieto de Patuzzo, and Ramón Mauricio García Prieto Estrada, allege new facts and, therefore, may not be considered as victims by this Tribunal. 33 Cf. Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre. Merits. Judgment of April 29, 2004. Series C No. 105, para. 48; See also the Court’s decision in: Case of La Cantuta v. Perú. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 72 and 79; and Case of Montero Aranguren et. al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, para. 33. 34 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Perú. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 153 and 155; Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Perú Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 162; and Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of Mary 11, 2007. Series C No. 164, para. 121.