38. The representatives asked the Court to review of the legality of the Commission’s decision not to include in its analysis the disciplinary proceedings filed against Mr. Urrutia following the presentation of the initial petition. They indicated that, in their first observations after the case was opened, they duly provided information on the disciplinary procedures that had been filed against the presumed victim up until that date. They argued that “[i]f the Commission considered that the new facts were ‘not sufficiently connected to the facts declared admissible,’ following our observations on the merits, it should have informed us so that we could consider whether, perhaps, to lodge a new petition based on them. Instead, the Commission forwarded our observations to the State, which noted them and did not argue that they this connection was absent; rather, in general terms, it denied that the State was responsible.” The representatives indicated that the Commission’s decision to exclude the facts they had reported to it three years and two months previously “constitute[d] an irregular action and an error that, now, seriously affected the right of defense of Judge Urrutia Laubreaux by preventing the Court from learning about the persecution to which he has been subjected for 14 years, adversely affecting his judicial activities.” A.2 Considerations of the Court 39. This Court has established that the factual framework of the proceedings before it is constituted by the facts contained in the Merits Report submitted to the Court’s consideration. Accordingly, it is not admissible to argue new facts that differ from those included in the said report, without prejudice to describing those that explain, clarify or reject the facts that were mentioned in the complaint or that correspond to the claims of the petitioner (also called “complementary facts”). The exception to this principle are the facts that are classified as supervening, and these can be forwarded to the Court at any stage of the proceedings prior to the delivery of the judgment.16 40. In the instant case, the inclusion of several facts that may be classified in three groups is in dispute: (a) facts included in the section “Other disciplinary proceedings” of the Merits Report; (b) facts not included in the section “Other disciplinary proceedings” of the Merits Report and included in the motions and pleadings brief, and (c) facts reported to the Court by the representatives in briefs subsequent to their motions and pleadings brief. The Court will rule on whether each of these groups of facts forms part of the factual framework of this case. A.2.a Facts included in the section “Other disciplinary proceedings” of the Merits Report 41. In a section entitled “Other disciplinary proceedings” of the chapter on “Established facts” of the Merits Report, the Commission included limited information on several proceedings that had been filed against the presumed victim and supposed acts of harassment in June 2006, May 2008, June 2008 and August 2013.17 However, in the Merits Report, the Commission noted that: 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 I.V. v. Bolivia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 30, 2016. Series C No. 329, para. 45. 16 According to the Commission, in June 2006, a disciplinary procedure was instituted owing to a special visit made to a detention center. In May 2008, the Ministry of Internal Affairs filed a complaint against him when Mr. Urrutia rejected lawsuits brought against students who had taken part in student protests. In June 2008, the Ministry of Justice filed a complaint indicating that Mr. Urrutia had “tried to visit the Santiago prison with a video camara.” In August 2013, the State Defense Council asked the Supreme Court to nullify a decision of the presumed victim regarding the right to vote of individuals deprived of their liberty. The decision was annulled by the Santiago Appellate Court finding that the presumed victim’s decision exceeded the scope of his competence and that he lacked the necessary legal authority to issue it. 17 10