B.2) Regarding other facts included in the pleadings and motions brief 54. As already indicated (supra para. 47), this Court cannot rule on events that do not form part of the factual framework contained in the Commission’s Merits Report. Consequently, the Court will not analyze the facts included in the pleadings and motions brief relating to the presumed accusation by a certain Army General against Mr. Vélez Restrepo that he was “a FARC sympathizer,”47 or the supposed conversation between Mr. Vélez and the President of the Republic at the time, during a working trip in late September 1996, during which Mr. Vélez told him about the persecution he was experiencing.48 Consequently, the Court will not rule on the alleged violation of Article 11 of the American Convention in relation to the first of these facts, and will not take into account the second fact when ruling on the violations of Articles 5 and 13 of the Convention. 55. However, the Court considers that numerous facts explained by the representative in the pleadings and motions brief that the State objected to, are related to the facts presented by the Commission in the factual framework of the Merits Report. This is the case of the following presumed facts: a) Those that describe the presumed meeting that Mr. Vélez Restrepo had with the director of the news program for which he worked, where “he was asked to abandon all legal actions regarding the attack in Caquetá,” and the alleged consequences of Mr. Vélez Restrepo’s refusal to do so,49 because they seek to explain the fact asserted by the Commission regarding the supposed “strong pressure” exerted by the medium for which Mr. Vélez worked “to censor his work and make him withdraw his legal complaints against the Army,” as well as his removal “from the group of reporters with access to military news sources”; b) Those related to the income that Mr. Vélez Restrepo supposedly earned at the time of the facts, and other information relating to the studies and activities of the members of the Vélez Román family in mid-199650 and the place where they lived, as well as the alleged facts regarding the Vélez Roman family moving house in early October 1996, and the change in schools for Mateo and Juliana.51 These facts are related to claims made by the Commission in the Merits Report concerning the “profound effects” of the alleged threats that occurred after August 29, 1996, “on the lives of the petitioners, forcing them to move house, to hide, to abandon their daily routines, and to experience a difficult financial situation,” which was described in detail by the representative; c) Those relating to the alleged decrease in and subsequent reactivation of threats against Mr. Vélez Restrepo52 and also the alleged facts included under the heading “Second stage of threats that culminated in a disappearance attempt: August - October 1997,”53 because they are directly related to the factual framework of the Merits Report. In this information, the representative presents more details of the references made by the Commission in the said report on the “intensification” of 47 Paragraphs 65 of the pleadings and motions brief (merits file, tome I, folio 123). 48 Paragraph 76 of the pleadings and motions brief (merits file, tome I, folio 126). 49 Paragraphs 66 and 67 of the pleadings and motions brief (merits file, tome I, folio 124). 50 Paragraphs 71 and 72 of the pleadings and motions brief (merits file, tome I, folio 125). 51 Paragraph 77 of the pleadings and motions brief (merits file, tome I, folio 126). 52 Paragraph 78 of the pleadings and motions brief (merits file, tome I, folios 126 and 127). 53 Paragraphs 81, 83 and 84 of the pleadings and motions brief (merits file, tome I, folios 127 and 128). 20