7 67. The Inter-American Commission presented in its application a list of 10 alleged victims of the facts of the present case, specifically: Hugo Muñoz Sánchez, Dora Oyague Fierro, Marcelino Rosales Cárdenas, Bertila Lozano Torres, Luis Enrique Ortiz Perea, Armando Richard Amaro Cóndor, Robert Edgar Teodoro Espinoza, Heráclides Pablo Meza, Juan Gabriel Mariños Figueroa, and Felipe Flores Chipana, as well as of 55 of their next of kin. The Court points out that evidence of the relationship was not presented with the application with regard to 46 of those alleged next of kin included in the text of the same. On the other hand, the representatives presented documents regarding 38 of those next of kin of alleged victims as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case requested by the Tribunal (supra paras. 33 and 36). […] 69. In its brief of pleadings and motions the representatives included four people considered next of kin of the alleged victims that had not been included in the application[…]. On that opportunity the proof of the relationship was not presented. Besides, said people were included by the Commission in its brief of final arguments and the representatives presented certain documents regarding said individuals as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case requested by the Tribunal. 70. In its final written arguments the Commission included two people that were not included in the application in the list of the next of kin of the alleged victims[…], based on their inclusion in statements offered before notary public by two of the next of kin. […] 72. This Tribunal’s jurisprudence with regard to the determination of alleged victims has been ample and adjusted to the circumstances of each case. The alleged victims must be included in the application and in the Commission’s Report adopted in the terms of Article 50 of the Convention. Therefore, pursuant to Article 33(1) of the Rules of Procedure it corresponds to the Commission, and not to this Tribunal, to identify the alleged victims in a case before the Court with precision and on the due procedural opportunity […]. However, in its defect, on some occasions the Court has considered as victims people that were not included as such in the application, as long as the parties’ right to a defense have been respected and the alleged victims are linked to the facts described in the application and the evidence presented before the Court […]. 73. This Tribunal will use the following criteria to define who else they will consider as alleged victims and their next of kin in the present case: a) the procedural opportunity in which they were identified; b) the acknowledgment of responsibility made by the State; c) the evidence regarding the same, and d) the characteristics of this specific case. 74. On this occasion, the Tribunal has found itself in the need to carry out a laborious assessment of the evidence presented by the Commission and the representatives, as well as to request additional documents as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case, oriented to obtaining the elements necessary for the precise identification of the alleged victims. After the analysis, the Tribunal has found the different situations mentioned in the previous paragraphs (supra paras. 67 through 71). […] 29. Having clarified who is considered as having the nature of alleged victims for the effect of the proceedings, in effect in the chapter on Proven Facts (paragraphs 80(106) and 80(100)) the Court considered as proven, inter alia, that Mrs. Carmen Juana Mariños Figueroa and Mr. Marcelino Marcos Pablo Meza were the sister and brother, respectively, of Messrs. Juan Gabriel Mariños Figueroa and Heráclides Pablo Meza. Later, in the following chapters, the Court assessed if there was evidence to determine if these persons were victims themselves of the alleged violations to the Convention. That is, regardless of the fact that their relationship with the victims was proven, the Court went on to establish if the State was responsible for an alleged violation of a right protected by the Convention in their detriment. 30. Thus, for example, the Tribunal made the following considerations in the chapter regarding the alleged violation of Article 5 of the Convention: 124. Following its jurisprudence […], the Court determines now if the suffering brought on as