35. Regarding the State’s arguments (supra para. 34), the representatives of the alleged victims indicated in their brief with final arguments that Uruguay was interpreting Article 61 of the American Convention and Article 40 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure erroneously. They stated that, although they had to respect the factual framework established by the Commission, “in the petitioner’s opinion, there was nothing to prevent that said factual framework resulting in the violation of other rights from those considered by the [Inter-American Commission].” The representatives maintained that “they had not introduce[d] a different case to the one submitted by the [Inter-American Commission], but rather […] had merely considered that the facts described in the matter gave rise to the violation of more rights that those understood by the [Inter-American Commission].” Considerations of the Court 36. To decide this point, the Court bases itself on its consistent case law. This Court has established that the Inter-American Commission’s application brief constitutes the factual framework for the proceedings before the Court, so that it is not admissible to argue new facts that differ from those set out in the said brief, without prejudice to describing those that explain, clarify or reject the facts mentioned in the application, or those related to the claims of the plaintiff.18 The exception to this principle concerns facts that are classified as supervening; information on such facts may be sent to the Court at any stage of the proceedings before the delivery of the judgment.19 Furthermore, the alleged victims and their representatives may invoke the violation of rights other than those included in the application provided they relate to the facts contained in that document, inasmuch as the alleged victims are the holders of all the rights embodied in the Convention.20 In brief, it is for the Court to decide, in each case, on the admissibility of arguments related to the factual framework in order to safeguard the procedural balance of the parties.21 37. In application of these criteria, the Court has verified that the factual framework of this case includes the administrative procedures before the Central Bank of Uruguay that decided the petitions of the alleged victims in relation to article 31 of the Law to “Strengthen the Financial System” approved on December 21, 2002, as well as the within the framework of the Advisory Commission with regard to the depositors of the Banco de Montevideo who had TCB certificates of deposit,” it had violated “the principle of due judicial guarantees and of equality; and, as to direct result of this, also the right to property.” In addition, regarding the latter, in their final written arguments, they indicated that “the result of the incorrect application of criteria by the [Advisory Commission] was that [their] savings were not returned [… which] constitutes the violation of the use and enjoyment of [their] private property.” 17 In the “Purpose” of the pleadings and motions brief, the representatives asked the Court to declare that Uruguay had violated Article 24 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, by “applying in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner certain rules of law during the proceedings before the Advisory Commission, that resulted in the inclusion in the benefits of Law 17,513 of only 22 depositors, as well as assisting certain offshore banking operations in the Uruguayan financial market in to discriminatory manner.” 18 Cf. Case of Five Pensioners v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 153; Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2011 Series C No. 224, para. 32; Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2011. Series C No. 227, para. 42, and Case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 26, 2011. Series C No. 229, para. 52. 19 Cf. Case of Five Pensioners v. Peru, supra note 18, para. 154; Case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina, supra note 18, para. 52, and Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela, supra note 12, para. 27. 20 Case of Five Pensioners v. Peru, supra note 18, para. 155; Case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina, supra note 18, para. 52, and Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela, supra note 12, para. 27. 21 Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 58; Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador, supra note 18, para. 32, and Case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina, supra note 18, para. 52 12