jurisdiction and the Council of State.” They therefore asked that the Court reject the State’s request and consider the said facts when deciding the dispute. A.2) Considerations of the Court 47. The Court recalls that the factual framework of the proceedings before this Court is constituted by the facts contained in the Merits Report submitted to its consideration. Consequently, it is not admissible for the parties to submit new facts that differ from those contained in this report, although they may present those that explain, clarify or reject the facts mentioned in the report that have been submitted to the Court’s consideration. 46 The exception to this principle are facts that are classified as supervening, or when the parties subsequently become aware of facts or obtain access to evidence on them, provided these are related to the facts in the proceedings. In addition, the presumed victims and their representatives may cite the violation of rights other than those included in the Merits Report, provided that they bear a relationship to the facts contained in that document, because the presumed victims are the holders of all the rights recognized in the Convention. 47 In sum, in each case, it is for the Court to decide on the admissibility of arguments relating to the factual framework in order to ensure the procedural equality of the parties. 48 48. Even though the facts in the Merits Report submitted to the Court’s consideration constitute the factual framework of the proceedings before the Court, 49 the Court is not limited by the classification of the facts and the assessment of the evidence made by the Commission in the exercise of its powers. 50 It is for the Court, in each case, to reach its own conclusions on the facts of the case, assessing the evidence offered by the Commission and the parties and the helpful evidence requested, respecting the right of defense of the parties and the purpose of the litis. 51 Although the State’s arguments regarding the factual framework are indeed time-barred because they were presented after its answering brief, the Court determines, ex officio, the conformity of the facts alleged by the representatives with the facts alleged in the factual framework submitted by the Commission. 52 49. The Court notes that not all the facts or chapters of the motions and arguments brief that the State alleges are new fall outside the factual framework submitted by the Inter46 Cf. Case of Five Pensioners v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 153, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 29, 2014. Series C No. 279, para. 38. 47 Cf. Case of Five Pensioners v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 155, and Case of Tarazona Arrieta et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 15, 2014. Series C No. 286, para. 18. 48 Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 58, and Case of the Pacheco Tineo Family v. Bolivia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2013. Series C No. 272, para. 22. 49 Cf. Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 26, 2012. Series C No. 244, para. 34, and Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 27. 50 Cf. inter alia, Case of Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of March 15, 1989. Series C No. 6, paras. 153 to 161, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 248, para. 32. 51 Cf. inter alia, Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haiti. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 180, para. 19, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 248, para. 32. 52 See, for example, Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (Diario Militar) v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2012. Series C No. 253, paras. 33 and 34, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 29, 2014. Series C No. 279, paras. 38 to 47. 21