24 environment; that, after their release, the alleged victims had not returned to Guerrero and that each of them had requested asylum in a foreign country.52 58. Additionally, unlike with other contexts alleged by the Commission and that will be analyzed later on (infra para. 65), the Commission did not consider that the work of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel, the threats that they allegedly suffered and the repression against defenders of the environment were related to the object of the case or were issues that should be adjudicated by the Court and, therefore, that the violations alleged are based on said threats and repression. On the other hand, the Commission, in its application, did not include facts related to the desperation and anguish that the next-of-kin allegedly suffered as a result of the alleged violations. Under no circumstances did the Commission include the relatives as alleged victims in its report on the merits or in the application. 59. In this respect, on previous occasions, this Tribunal has analyzed the question of whether a particular case forms part of a context in its analysis of the merits of the case, and has found that “there are no sufficient facts in the case file for this Tribunal to decide that the […] case is framed within the [context] situation” alleged by the Commission.53 However, in order to conduct this type of analysis, it is necessary for the Commission to put forward specific arguments according to which this case is framed within a particular context, a question that was not raised in the instant matter as to the acts of threats and repression for the defense of the environment. Consequently, in another case, the Court rejected to adjudicate on certain facts that even though were presented as a “contextual background involving the history of the controversy,” it was verified that they were not presented before the Tribunal “for the Court’s adjudication.”54 It is a different case where the Commission considers that a fact that the Court has established as proven does not lead to any particular violation or where the Commission makes no allegations with respect to that fact at all. In these cases, the Court has applied the principle of iura novit curia to declare the existence of a violation not alleged by the Commission. 60. Due to the foregoing, the Tribunal considers that it is not appropriate to rule on the facts alleged by the representatives that were not set out in the application by the Commission as facts to be adjudicate by the Court, that is, regarding the threats that Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel allegedly suffered before their detention and after their release from prison, the alleged repression that they allegedly underwent for their environmental defense work, and the suffering that the nextof-kin of the alleged victims allegedly endured. Similarly, the Tribunal shall not rule on the alleged violations of Articles 5 and 16 of the American Convention in regard to said facts. 2. Alleged contextual facts 61. The Commission and the representatives referred to several contextual facts, particularly, “the abuses committed by military forces based in the state of Guerrero,” some patterns in the use of torture in Mexico, and the impact that this has on judicial proceedings, as well as the “use of the military jurisdiction to investigate and trial human rights violations.” 52 Cf. Application brief, paras. 42, 43 and 83 (record of the merits, volume I, folios 13 and 38). 53 Cf. Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C Nº. 165, para. 64. 54 Cf. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C N° 172, para. 16.