C. Regarding the factual framework of this case 17. The Court notes that the representatives added certain facts that the Commission had not included in its Merits Report. In particular, among their arguments, the representatives referred to: (i) presumed pressure and harassment against the newspaper La Libertad in the context of the facts of this case, as well as (ii) background information on investigative journalism carried out by the newspaper La Libertad, unrelated to this case, and supposed “persecution” suffered by this newspaper in 1948. 18. This Court recalls that the factual framework of the proceedings before the Court is constituted by the facts included in the Merits Report submitted to the Court’s consideration. Although the presumed victims or their representatives may cite the violation of rights other than those contained in the Merits Report during contentious proceedings before this Court, it is not admissible for the parties to alleged new facts that differ from those contained in the said report, even though they may include those facts that explain, clarify or reject the facts mentioned in the report and have been submitted to the Court’s consideration. 16 The exception to this principles are facts that are classified as supervening, provided they are related to the facts of the proceedings. The Court notes that the above-mentioned facts described by the representatives do not constitute facts that explain, clarify or reject those included in the Merits Report and are not supervening facts. Consequently, the Court cannot take them into consideration. IV PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 19. The State filed two preliminary objections: the alleged violation of due process in the proceedings before the Inter-American Commission and the alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies. This Court will analyze the preliminary objections filed in the order in which they were submitted. A. Alleged violation of due process in the proceedings before the InterAmerican Commission A.1) Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 20. The State asked the Court “to abstain from hearing this case” because, it argued, due process had been infringed during the proceedings before the Commission as a result of an inexcusable abuse of process by the Commission in relation to the period of almost four years that elapsed between the presentation of the petition and its notification to the State. First, the State indicated that “the fact that the applicable body of law does not include a specific time frame for processing the petition, does not mean that the Commission has unlimited time to do this.” In this regard, the State explained that the excessive delay in this case entailed: (a) the indirect violation of Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention; (b) the violation of the State’s right of defense, and (c) the application to this case of the principle of estoppel. 21. Regarding point (a), the State underscored that the object and purpose of [Article 46(1)(b)], which is supposed to safeguard legal certainty and stability, […] is not satisfied […] by mere compliance with the time frame by the petitioner, but rather must be complemented 16 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 Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 21, 2013. Series C No. 261, para. 19. 10