11 violation of the rights recognized in Article 7(b) of the Convention of Belém do Pará. 10 Therefore, the preliminary objection filed by the State, is admitted partially in the said terms. V PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS A) Determination of the presumed victims in this case A.1. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 30. The Commission indicated in its Report on Admissibility and Merits that the presumed victims in this case are Gladys Carol Espinoza Gonzáles and her family: (i) Teodora Gonzáles viuda de Espinoza (mother); (ii) Marlene Espinoza Gonzáles (sister); (iii) Miriam Espinoza Gonzáles (sister), and (iv) Manuel Espinoza Gonzáles (brother). In their motions and arguments brief, the representatives agreed with the list of presumed victims presented by the Commission. However, subsequently, they presented a communication in which they advised that Marlene and Miriam Espinoza Gonzáles, sisters of Gladys Carol Espinoza Gonzáles, “do not want to be considered victims in the litigation before the Court […],” and, therefore, had not presented their powers of attorney. The State asked the Court not to take into account Marlene and Miriam Espinoza Gonzáles, if reparations were eventually ordered, because they had voluntarily renounced their condition of presumed victims. A.2. Considerations of the Court 31. Although Marlene and Miriam Espinoza Gonzáles were identified as presumed victims in the Report on Admissibility and Merits, in view of their express request and, as it has decided previously, 11 the Court will not rule on the alleged violations to their detriment and declares that it will only consider Gladys Carol Espinoza Gonzáles, Teodora Gonzáles de Espinoza and Manuel Espinoza Gonzáles as presumed victims and eventual beneficiaries of any reparations that are in order. B) Factual framework of the case B.1. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 32. The Commission indicated in its Report on Admissibility and Merits that “its task [was] not to rule on the guilt or innocence of Ms. Espinoza Gonzáles and […] that the facts of this case do not include any possible violations of the American Convention arising from the criminal proceedings brought against her.” Regarding the death of Rafael Edwin Salgado Castillo, the Commission indicated that “[a]though that incident [was] not at issue in the instant case, [it would] take into consideration the CVR’s conclusions regarding the way in which Gladys Carol Espinoza was detained and transferred to the DIVISE’s premises.” 33. The representatives alleged certain facts that the Commission had not mentioned in its Report on Admissibility and Merits. In particular, they referred to: (i) the first detention and acquittal of Gladys Espinoza for the crime of terrorism in 1987 and in 1988, respectively; (ii) the circumstances, other than the detention and presumed delay in being brought before a judge, which allegedly occurred during the criminal proceedings for the crime of terrorism instituted 10 Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, supra, paras. 5 and 344, and Case of J. v. Peru, supra, para. 21. 11 Cf. Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 237, para. 31, and Case of the Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 283, para. 49.