B. The factual framework of the case B.1. Arguments of the parties and the Commission 32. The State argued, under the heading of “preliminary observations,” that the Commission, “has erroneously distorted the meaning of this case and has raised legal issues that, strictly speaking, bear no relationship to the facts.” It underlined that the removal of Mr. Casa Nina from his post “did not occur owing to the application of a sanction; consequently, no disciplinary procedure has been conducted.” In this regard, it argued that he had not been removed, terminated or dismissed; merely, his designation as Provisional Deputy Prosecutor of the Second Provincial Criminal Prosecution Office of Huamanga, Ayacucho, had concluded. The State asked the Court to establish and delimit the central fact of the dispute in order to determine the legal positions assumed by the parties and, if necessary, the legal grounds that would be the basis for its ruling. 33. The representative indicated that the Merits Report delimited “clearly” the purpose of the dispute. Meanwhile, the Commission indicated that the State’s argument “does not really refer to the delimitation of the factual framework, but rather to a discrepancy with the legal characterization” made in the Merits Report. It added that the said factual framework of this case is “clearly delimited and is constituted by the proceedings that culminated with the victim’s removal from his post of Provisional Deputy Prosecutor of the Second Criminal Prosecution Office of the province of Huamanga.” It asked the Court to reject the State’s position. B.2. Considerations of the Court 34. The Court recalls that the factual framework of the proceedings is constituted by the facts contained in the Merits Report submitted to its consideration.16 In this regard, as indicated by the Commission, the State’s argument did not object directly to the delimitation of the factual framework, but rather to the Merits Report’s categorization of those facts. Specifically, it contested the affirmation that the termination of the post occupied by the presumed victim was the result of a sanction and, therefore, denied that he had been removed, terminated or dismissed. In any case, these aspects are related to the legal arguments on the characterization of the facts, elements that undoubtedly form part of the in-depth analysis that the Court will make. VI EVIDENCE A. Admissibility of the documentary evidence 35. The Court received diverse documents presented as evidence by the Commission and the parties with their principal briefs (supra paras. 1, 7 and 8). As in other cases, the Court admits those documents presented at the proper procedural moment (Article 57 of the Rules of Procedure)17 by the parties and the Commission, the admissibility of which was not Cf. Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2011. Series C No. 226, para. 32, and Case of Urrutia Laubreaux v. Chile, supra, para. 39. 16 In general the documentary evidence should be presented pursuant to Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, together with the briefs submitting the case or with pleadings and motions, or with the answering brief, as applicable, and evidence submitted outside these procedural opportunities is inadmissible, save in the case of the exceptions established in the said Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure (namely, force majeure or grave impediment) or if it relates to a supervening fact; that is, one that occurred after the said procedural moments. 17 10