8 requested for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, they stated that “all the next of kin who are legally entitled should be granted compensation.” 28. Finally, as helpful evidence requested by the Court, the representatives and the Commission submitted documents on the existence of María Magdalena Galeano, Rosa Mujica Giménez, Sotera Ramírez Villalba, Hermino Arnaldo Ramírez Villalba, Adolfina Eugenia Ramírez de Espinoza, Mario Artemio Ramírez Villalba and Lucrecia Francisca Ramírez (Mr. Borba’s widow) or on their relationship to the alleged victims. * * * 29. The Court’s case law regarding the determination of alleged victims has been extensive and adapted to the circumstances of each case. The alleged victims should be indicated in the application and in the Commission’s report under Article 50 of the Convention. Consequently, according to Article 33(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, it corresponds to the Commission and not the Court to identify the alleged victims in a case before the Court precisely and at the appropriate procedural opportunity.1 However, if this is not done, the Court has, at times, considered as victims individuals who were not alleged as such in the application, provided that the right to defense of the parties has been respected and the alleged victims have some connection to the facts described in the application and the evidence provided to the Court.2 30. In addition to the persons specifically named in the application, the Court will use the following criteria to define who else will be considered alleged victims and their next of kin in this case: (a) the procedural opportunity at which they were identified; (b) the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility; (c) the respective evidence, and (d) the characteristics of this case. 31. Regarding the nephews and nieces of the Ramírez Villalba brothers, children of Julio Darío Ramírez Villalba (supra para. 25), the Court observes that the request in their favor was presented by the Commission when it submitted the application and reiterated in its final written arguments; accordingly, they will be considered alleged victims in the corresponding sections. 32. The Court has also noted that the Inter-American Commission included in its final written arguments eleven persons, alleged next of kin of Agustín Goiburú Giménez, Carlos José Mancuello Bareiro and Rodolfo and Benjamín Ramírez Villalba, to be considered as alleged victims and beneficiaries, who were not referred to in the application brief. 33. In this situation, the Court has had to make a laborious examination of the evidence provided by the Commission in order to extract the elements required to make a precise identification of the alleged victims, and to request helpful evidence, and it has determined that there are two situations. On the one hand, with regard to some of the alleged next of kin of Messrs. Mancuello and Ramírez Villalba, the Court 1 2 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 98. Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 1, para. 91; Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al.. Judgment of February 7, 2006. Series C No. 144, para. 227; and Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 183.