declared, the Court will analyze the measures agreed upon in order to determine their scope and means of implementation,85 in light of the criteria established in its case law and in relation to the nature, object and purpose of the obligation to make integral reparation for the damage caused to the victims.86 79. Based on the foregoing and that the friendly settlement agreement seeks to provide reparation to more victims than those identified in the Merits Report of the Commission, the Court will determine: (a) the injured party in this Judgment, and (b) the other beneficiaries of the friendly settlement agreement. A. Injured Party 80. The Commission’s Merits Report identified as alleged victims 107 inmates who died owing to the fire in the San Pedro Sula Prison, 22 of whom were being held in pre-trial detention based merely on the offense of unlawful association. It also identified 83 next of kin of 18 of the deceased inmates as victims in their own right. In addition, in the brief submitting the case, the Commission indicated that, following the approval of the Merits Report, the petitioners had forwarded the Commission an extended list of next of kin that includes the identification of the next of kin of Oscar Israel Duarte Valle, and of additional next of kin of William Antonio Reyes Flores and Manuel Armando Cortes.87 81. This Court recalls that, in its recent consistent case law, it has established that the presumed victims must be indicated in the report that the Commission issues under Article 50 of the Convention. In addition, pursuant to Article 35(1)(b) of the Rules of Procedure, it corresponds to the Commission and not to this Court to identify precisely and at the appropriate procedural opportunity the presumed victims in a case before the Court.88 82. Moreover, the Court notes that Eddy Adalberto Amaya Zepeda was mentioned by the Commission in its Merits Report as one of the 22 inmates who was being held in pre-trial detention at the time of the fire and, consequently, he was a victim of the violation of Articles 5(4), 7 and 9 of the Convention. However, Mr. Amaya Zepeda is not on the list of the 107 deceased inmates indicated by the Commission or the representatives; furthermore, the Court has no information to authenticate the existence of this individual. Nevertheless, based on the particularities of the case, Mr. Amaya Zepeda will be considered an injured party in the case, on condition that the representatives or next of kin of this individual prove that he was detained in cell No. 19 of the San Pedro Sula Prison at the time of the facts and, if appropriate, provide information of his death, in the terms of paragraph 87 of this Judgment. 83. Consequently, the Court finds it appropriate to clarify that only those persons indicated as alleged victims by the Inter-American Commission in the Merits Report under Article 50 of the American Convention will be considered as such in this case. Also, the Court reiterates that it considers as an injured party, in the terms of Article 63(1) of the Convention, anyone who has been declared a victim of a violation of a right recognized therein.89 85 Which accompany the implementation timetable, supra note 17. 86 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Reparations and costs, supra note 82, paras. 25 to 27, and Case of González Medina and family, supra note 13, para. 279. 87 The Commission did not indicate the names of these family members. 88 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 98, and Case of Fleury et al., supra note 61 para. 21. 89 Cf. Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 233 and Case of González Medina and family, supra note 13, para. 281. 24