- 13 representative’s legal arguments that, although they differ from the legal conclusions of the Commission, do not refer to new facts. In this regard, the Court recalls its consistent case law according to which the presumed victims and their representatives may mention the violation of rights other than those included in the Merits Report, provided they relate to the facts contained in the said document, because the presumed victims are the holders of all the rights recognized in the Convention.27 Similarly, the representative’s arguments on the unlawfulness of Wong Ho Wing’s detention and on the applications for habeas corpus filed after the 2011 ruling of the Constitutional Court are legal arguments and not new facts. Although the appeal filed on April 26, 2013,28 is not mentioned specifically, this Court considers that the fact that, following the ruling of the Constitutional Court, the representative filed numerous remedies to try and obtain Wong Ho Wing’s liberty forms part of the factual framework.29 The references to all the remedies that were filed constitute facts that complement and describe in greater detail this factual situation that the Commission included in its Merits Report. The Court also considers that the representative’s arguments about supposed pressure placed on Peru and on Wong Ho Wing’s family so that the extradition would be granted constitutes factual circumstances that would be part of the extradition process in Peru; accordingly, these are facts that explain or clarify the facts contained in the factual framework established by the Merits Report in this case. Consequently, the Court does not find the State’s objection admissible as regards the facts relating to the alleged suffering of Wong Ho Wing, his detention and the remedies filed following the ruling of the Constitutional Court, as well as with regard to the alleged pressure to grant the extradition. Despite the above, in the chapter on the facts, the Court will determine those that it considers proved in the instant case. 36. To the contrary, the Court notes that the facts included in the statements of the presumed victim and his next of kin with regard to Wong Ho Wing’s detention conditions, or the treatment received during his deprivation of liberty, as well as the proceedings for money-laundering opened in Peru do not constitute facts that explain, clarify or reject those included in the Merits Report. Consequently, the Court will not take them into account in this case. VII EVIDENCE A. Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence 37. This Court received diverse documents presented as evidence by the Commission and the parties attached to their main briefs (supra paras. 3, 7 and 8). The Court also received from the parties documents it had requested as helpful evidence under Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure. In addition, the Court received the affidavits made by the presumed victim, Wong Ho Wing, and the witnesses, Kin Mui Chan and He Long Huang, as well as the expert opinions of Carmen Wurst de Landázuri, Ben Saul and Geoff Gilbert, Huawen Liu and Jean Carlo Mejía Azuero.30 Regarding the evidence provided during the public hearing, the Court heard the expert opinions of Bingzhi Zhao, Ang Sun and Víctor Oscar Shiyin García Toma. B. Admission of the evidence B.1) Admission of the documentary evidence 27 Cf. Case of the Five Pensioners v. Peru, supra, para. 155, and Case of Cruz Sánchez et al. v. Peru, supra, note al pie 47. 28 The remedies specifically indicated by the State do not explicitly mention the appeal of April 26, 2013. The appeal of March 13, 2012, is indicated in paragraph 138 of the Commission’s Merits Report. 29 In this regard, see paragraphs 124 to 131, 133, 134, 138 and 141 of the Commission’s Merits Report. 30 The purpose of these statements was established in the President’s order of July 28, 2014 (supra note 3).