considered as alleged victims in the instant case, and that it is not appropriate to admit the other next of kin as alleged victims. B. Determination of the factual framework 23. The Court observes that the representatives argued in the pleadings and motions brief that the death of Mr. Archila Pérez while he was deprived of liberty was a direct consequence of the lack of health care that should have been provided to him, specifying that he contracted diabetes in prison. They stated that Mr. Archila Pérez did not die of natural causes, but because of the poor prison conditions, which constituted a violation of Articles 4(1) and 4(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument. They also alleged that Mr. Rodríguez Revolorio, Mr. López Calo and Mr. Archila Pérez were not informed of the charges made at the time of their arrest, in violation of Article 8(2)(b) of the American Convention. 24. This Court has established that the factual framework of the proceeding before it is constituted by the facts contained in the Merits Report submitted for consideration by the Commission,12 for which reason no new facts are admissible other than those set forth in said brief, without prejudice to the submission of facts that may explain, clarify or dismiss those that have been mentioned in the application, or respond to the claims of the plaintiff (also called "complementary facts"). The exception to this principle are the facts qualified as supervening, which may be referred to the Court at any stage of the proceedings before the issuance of the judgment.13 25. In the instant case, the Court finds that the Commission did not include within the factual framework, nor as a substantive consideration, (i) the facts alleged by the representatives in relation to the alleged violation of Article 4 due to the death of Mr. Archila Pérez, nor (ii) the facts relating to the time of detention of Mr. Rodríguez Revolorio, Mr. López Calo and Mr. Archila Pérez. Therefore, the Court clarifies that it will not rule on such facts or on the legal arguments made by the representatives in this regard. VI EVIDENCE A. Admissibility of documentary evidence 26. The Court received various documents submitted as evidence by the Commission, the representatives and the State, which, as in other cases, it admits on the understanding that they were submitted in due time (Article 57 of the Rules of Procedure)14 and their admissibility was not contested or objected to. These are (i) the imposition of the death penalty on Rodríguez Revolorio, López Calo and Archila Pérez, (ii) prison conditions, and (iii) the alleged shortcomings in the criminal proceedings. 13 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. 14 Documentary evidence may be submitted, in general and in accordance with Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, together with the brief submitting the case, the pleadings and motions or the reply briefs, as appropriate. Evidence submitted outside those procedural opportunities is not admissible, except in the circunstances established in the aforementioned Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure (namely, force majeure, serious impediment) or unless it is a supervening event, that is, one that occurred after the aforementioned procedural moments. Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 237, para. 17 and 18, and Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 6, 2019. Series C No. 375, para. 38. 12 8