33. Consequently, the Court decides that it will only consider as presumed victims the eight persons that the Commission included as such in Merits Report No. 176/10: Segundo Aniceto Norín Catrimán, Pascual Huentequeo Pichún Paillalao, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, Juan Ciriaco Millacheo Licán, Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe and Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles. Consequently, the Court will not rule on the arguments presented by common interveners concerning the alleged violations of Articles 5 and 17 of the Convention to the detriment of the next of kin of the presumed victims. 34. The above does not preclude the State, at its own discretion, from adopting measures of reparation in their favor if the pertinent facts are verified. b. The person convicted for similar acts to those of the presumed victims 35. Furthermore, there are also insufficient grounds to admit the request of the FIDH that Juan Carlos Huenulao Llelmil be considered a presumed victim (supra para. 26) because, as indicated, he was convicted for the same acts as the presumed victims in this case. None of the petitions before the Commission that gave rise to this case (supra para. 2.a) was lodged by Mr. Huenulao Llelmil or on his behalf, and the said petitions did not allege that Chile was responsible for the presumed violations of his human rights. None of the three Admissibility Reports (supra para. 2.b) referred to Juan Carlos Huenulao Llelmil, and neither did the Commission identify him as a presumed victim in the Merits Report. From the evidence to which the FIDH refers,33 the Court has verified that, in the same way as five of the presumed victims in this case, Juan Carlos Huenulao Llelmil was convicted of the offense of terrorist arson34 in relation to the fire that occurred on December 19, 2001, on the “Poluco Pidenco” property (infra para. 81.e). However, Juan Carlos Huenulao Llelmil was sentenced in a later judgment, and not in the judgment sentencing these presumed victims (infra para. 126). 36. Previously the Court has declared that the fact that other persons are in some way connected to the facts of the case is not sufficient for the Court to be able to consider them presumed victims and eventually declare violations of their rights.35 Although it is true that proceedings under international human rights law cannot abide by a rigid formalism, because their main and determining mandate is the due and complete protection of such rights,36 it is also true that specific procedural elements preserve the necessary conditions to ensure that the procedural rights of the parties are not reduced or unequal.37 Consequently, it is not possible to dispense with the procedure before the Commission established in Articles 48 to 50 of the 33 Cf. Judgment delivered on May 3, 2005, by the Angol Oral Criminal Trial Court (file of annexes to the FIDH motions and arguments brief, annex 42, folios 1544 to 1595). 34 As stipulated in article 476.3 of the Criminal Code, and articles 1(1), 2(1) and 3 bis of Law No. 18,314 (“Counterterrorism Act”). 35 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of January 19, 2009. Request to expand the list of presumed victims and refusal of submission of documentary evidence, considerandum 35. 36 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections. Judgment of September 4, 1998. Series C No. 41, para. 77; Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177, para. 12, and Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of January 19, 2009. Request to expand the list of presumed victims and refusal of submission of documentary evidence, considerandum 45. 37 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, paras. 33 and 34; Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 41, and Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of January 19, 2009, considerandum 45. 14