objection. Consequently, the Court declares the preliminary objection presented by the State inadmissible. C. Alleged improper inclusion of Articles 5 and 11 of the Convention in the motions and pleadings briefs C.1. Arguments of the State, observations of the Commission and the presumed victim 30. The State argued that, despite the fact that the Commission in its Admissibility Report No. 37/16 dated August 12, 2016 found the petition in relation to Articles 5 (Right to humane treatment) and 11 (Right to privacy) of the American Convention inadmissible, and it did not consider those rights in its Merits Report, Mrs. Moya Solís made a series of general statements by means of which she intends to discuss the impacts on the aforementioned rights. Therefore, it asked the Court not to assess the presumed victim’s allegations. It also indicated that, in this case, domestic remedies had not been exhausted in relation to the rights to privacy and humane treatment, for which it indicated that it also presented the preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies in relation to this matter. 31. The presumed victim did not refer to this matter. The Commission indicated that the presumed victims and her representatives may invoke the violation of rights other than those included in the Merits Report, as long as they are framed by the facts contained in said document, insofar as the presumed victims are the holders of the rights enshrined in the Convention. It also highlighted that the State's argument regarding the due definition of the rights alleged by the presumed victim is a matter that corresponds to the substantive debate and could not be resolved by means of a preliminary objection. C.2 Considerations of the Court 32. The Court reiterates that the presumed victims and their representatives may invoke the violation of rights other than those included in the Merits Report, provided that they remain within the factual framework defined by the Commission, insofar as the presumed victims are the holders of the all the rights enshrined in the American Convention. In such cases, it is up to the Court to decide on the admissibility of arguments concerning the factual framework, safeguarding the procedural balance of the parties.10 33. However, in this specific case the Court finds that, although the alleged victim mentioned Articles 5 and 11 of the Convention and made general reference to her honesty, integrity and life goals, she did not present specific allegations related to the violation of the rights contained in said articles, nor did she request the Court’s permission to declare the violation of rights other than those indicated in the Merits Report. Thus, the petition contained in the motions and pleadings brief states: “I request the Honorable Inter-American Court of Human Rights to declare the responsibility of the Peruvian State for the following reasons: 5.1. For having violated my rights corresponding to the judicial guarantees, established in Articles 8(1), 8(2) b), 8(2)c); for having violated the principle of legality established in Article 9; and for having violated my judicial protection established in Article 25(1); as well as those related to articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights […] ”. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the Cf. Case of Pacheco Tineo Family v. Bolivia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2013. Series C No. 272, para. 22, and Case of Coc Max et al. (Xamán Massacre) v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 22, 2018. Series C No. 356, para. 133. 10 9