30. Lastly, the Court notes that the representatives asked that certain aspects of the testimony given by the witnesses Rosolina Trujillo and Julio de Brun “not be taken into account.” However, the Court finds that the representatives’ observations relate to the content of these two statements, and that they are not contesting their admissibility, but rather refer to matters of probative value.15 Based on the foregoing, the Court admits these statements, although their probative value will be considered only in relation to the part that is precisely in keeping with the purpose duly defined by the President of the Court (supra para. 17), taking into account the whole body of evidence, the observations of the parties, and the rules of sound judicial discretion. Thus, the representatives’ observations will be considered, as appropriate, when examining the merits of the dispute. V PRIOR CONSIDERATIONS 31. In this chapter, the Court will formulate some considerations regarding the facts that are the purpose of this case, the determination of the alleged victims, and how it will deal with the State’s arguments on the “failure to exhaust domestic remedies.” A. Regarding the facts that are the subject of this case Arguments of the parties 32. In its application brief in this case, the Commission included the presentation of the facts, as established in Article 34(1) of the Court’s previous Rules of Procedure applicable to this case with regard to “the presentation of the case before the Court,” as established in Article 79(2) of the Court’s current Rules of Procedure (supra para. 4). 33. In the chapter on “Facts” in the pleadings and motions brief, the representatives indicated that they “fully agree with what the Inter-American Commission has described in paragraphs 28 to 95 of its application brief with regard to the facts, and the conclusions it draws from them,” and also stated that, “in order not to create unnecessary duplication, [they] would merely outline [their] point of view on the facts, emphasizing the elements [they] deemed most relevant for the Court to consider, and to justify [their] subsequent petition; otherwise, referring to what the Commission had described so well.” 34. In its answering brief and its brief with final arguments, the State affirmed that the representatives of the alleged victims were trying to introduce elements that “do not form part of the facts invoked by [the Commission] as the purpose of the […] application,” and this “was not admissible in light of Articles 44 and 61 of the Convention […] and Articles 35(3) and 40(2)(a) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure.” The State indicated that “by expanding the purpose of the proceedings, the alleged victims are trying to reincorporate” aspects relating to the alleged violations of Articles 21 (Right to Property)16 and 24 (Right to Equal Protection)17 of the Convention, “which had already been excluded by the Commission in its Report on Merits.” 15 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 43; Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010. Series C No. 218, para. 86, and Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 4, 2011. Series C No. 223, para. 47 16 In the “Purpose” of the pleadings and motions brief, the representatives asked the Court to declare that Uruguay had violated Article 21 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, “owing to its absence of due diligence and its omission of protection in relation to the private fraud committed by the Peirano Group.” Also, in the brief’s legal considerations, they indicated that, by acting “in to discriminatory manner 11