the Commission had included in its Merits Report. Therefore, the Court does not find the State’s objection to these facts admissible. 50. Furthermore, the Court notes that the supposed radio communications among the Military Forces, the exclusion of which was requested by the State, constitute evidence used by the representatives to substantiate the facts relating to the implementation of the military operations to retake the Palace of Justice, the orders given, and the differentiated treatment of individuals who were suspected of belonging to the M-19, all of which is part of the factual framework submitted by the Commission. 58 Consequently, the Court considers that it is not in order to exclude this evidence from the analysis of the events of this case, without prejudice to assessing it in the context of the whole body of evidence and pursuant to the rules of sound judicial discretion, taking into account the observations of the State. 51. However, the Court notes that the Commission did not include the following elements in its Merits Report, and they are not facts that explain, clarify or reject those included in that report: (1) the presumed threats and harassment of officials and witnesses, with the exception of the presumed threats received by Mr. Sánchez Cuesta and the supposed removal of the prosecutor Ángela María Buitrago, and (2) the facts relating to the presumed violation of the right to movement and residence (Article 22 of the Convention) to the detriment of René Guarín Cortés, Yolanda Santodomingo Albericci and the family of Carlos Horacio Urán Rojas. Consequently, the Court will not take them into account in its decision in this case. The Court has also verified that the presumed practices of extrajudicial executions, arbitrary detentions, forced disappearances, torture and impunity for human rights violations alleged as context by the representatives does not fall within the factual framework submitted by the Commission. The Merits Report contains a more limited context, restricted to a supposed practice under which presumed members of the guerrilla were taken to military facilities where they were ill-treated. 59 The Court will only refer to and take into account this more limited context included in the Merits Report and not the additional supposed practices described by the representatives in their briefs. B. Request to carry out a control of legality of the actions of the InterAmerican Commission B.1) Arguments of the State and of the Commission 52. During the public hearing on the preliminary objections and in its brief with final arguments, the State “expressly waive[d] its request to annul the procedures before the […] Commission,” as well as the preliminary objection that the Court did not have competence “to examine certain facts, rights and victims that were insufficiently identified, established and delimited, even at this procedural stage, as a result of the illegality of some actions [of the Commission].” Nevertheless, the State asked the Court to make a ruling in which it declared that: (i) the Commission’s actions led to a violation of the basic guarantees of due process; (ii) the Commission’s decisions that may affect the rights of the parties must always be reasoned, irrespective of the regulatory provisions that require this,” and (iii) “the reason why the procedure [lasted] 20 years before the […] Commission, is not 58 In this regard, see paragraphs 158 to 174, 409 and 415 of the Merits Report. 59 In paragraph 382 of its legal considerations in the Merits Report, the Commission took into account the assessment included in a domestic decision according to which “at the time of the events, the transfer to military garrisons, especially the Cavalry School, and the ill-treatment meted out to those who, in any way, were suspected of belonging to illegal armed groups, was usual.” The Court will only take into account the references to this possible practice to the extent that they are useful to analyze the specific facts of this case. The Court inserts the facts that are the subject of this case within their context in order to understand them and to rule on the State’s responsibility for the specific facts of this case; but, in doing so, it does not seek to issue a ruling that evaluates the different circumstances included in this context. Cf. Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 32, 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. 53. 23