- 12 - VI PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS 32. In his motions and arguments brief, the representative included Wong Ho Wing’s wife, daughters and brother as presumed victims of the facts of this case. The Commission did not include these persons as presumed victims in its Merits Report. Consequently, their inclusion was contested by the State. However, in his final written arguments, the representative “withdr[ew this request], preserving the right of those persons to demand their rights within the jurisdiction of the Peruvian State.” Therefore, this Court takes note of the said waiver and finds that it is not necessary to make any additional observations in this regard. A. The factual framework of the case A.1) Arguments of the State and observations of the representative and of the Commission 33. The State argued that the representative had “not respected the factual framework disputed before the Court […] and unduly s[ought] to expand it to allege the supposed violation of the right to personal integrity.” According to the State, the facts included in the Merits Report concerning a supposed violation of the personal integrity of Wong Ho Wing relate to the extradition process and the supposed lack of security owing to the risk of the application of the death penalty and torture, but not to the supposed effects of the deprivation of Wong Ho Wing’s liberty as the representative alleges. In addition, in its final written arguments, the State indicated that the representative “alleges facts that differ from those delimited by the [Commission], such as a presumed unlawful detention” and also the applications for habeas corpus filed on March 13, 2012, and April 26, 2013, that “are not mentioned by the Commission in the section of the [Merits Report] on the facts of the case.” The representative and the Commission argued that the facts indicated by the State were included in the factual framework established in the Merits Report. A.2) Considerations of the Court 34. This Court recalls that the factual framework of the proceedings before it consists of the facts submitted to its consideration in the Merits Report. Consequently, it is not admissible for the parties to allege new facts that differ from those contained in that report, without prejudice to describing those that may explain, clarify or reject the facts that have been mentioned in the report and submitted to the Court’s consideration.24 The exception to this principle are any facts classified as supervening, provided that these are connected to the facts of the proceedings.25 35. The Court notes that the representative bases himself on the facts relating to the deprivation of liberty of Wong Ho Wing to argue that, in addition to the presumed violation of personal liberty, his personal integrity had also been violated. These facts are included in the factual framework.26 The State’s arguments concerning supposed new facts refer to the 2014, consideranda 5 and 9. 23 Cf. Case of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of January 29, 2014, and Case of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of March 31, 2014. 24 Cf. Case of the Five Pensioners v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 153, and Case of Cruz Sánchez et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 90. 25 Cf. Case of the Five Pensioners v. Peru, supra, para. 154, and Case of Cruz Sánchez et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 90. 26 In this regard, see paragraphs 67 to 141 of the Commission’s Merits Report.