comprising the petition, the facts related thereto. During the merits stage, the scope and specific content of the facts alleged in the initial application and referred to in the Admissibility Report were determined, based on an examination of the evidence received in adversarial proceedings. Thus, the facts for which the State’s international responsibility was declared and the respective arguments of the petitioners were known to the State from the moment it was notified of the initial application and during the merits stage; therefore it had ample opportunity to dispute them. The representatives did not present any arguments in this regard. B.2. Considerations of the Court 28. In its case law, the Court has held that the rights specified in the Commission’s Admissibility Report are the result of a preliminary examination of the application under consideration, which does not limit the possibility of including other rights or Articles that were presumably infringed in subsequent stages of the process, provided that the State’s right of defense is respected and the factual framework of the case under analysis is maintained. 21 However, based on the adversarial principle, the discussion on the factual issues must be reflected in the Merits Report. 22 Thus, it is for the Court to decide in each case on the admissibility of the arguments relating to the factual framework, thereby safeguarding the procedural balance between the parties. 23 29. In the Admissibility Report of September 8, 2010, 24 the Commission concluded that it was competent to examine the merits of the case and declared the application admissible. It decided to proceed with the analysis of merits regarding the supposed violation of Article 4, in relation to Mr. A.A., and Articles 5(1), 8(1) and 25, in respect of B.A. and her relatives, all in accordance with Article 1(1) of the American Convention. The Commission also included in the Admissibility Report, in the section entitled “III. Position of the parties”, arguments presented by the petitioners, in the following terms: 12. The petitioners allege that the initial investigative activities produced indications of a planned action. They point out that there was no robbery, so that the motive for the murder was related to the activities of Mr. [A.A.] and his daughter. They say that there is a history of death threats and intimidation against [B.A.]. They indicate that even though the authorities were informed from the outset that this was very likely a political murder, the authorities have never taken this fact into account, stating that this is just one more case of ordinary violence. […] 17. According to the petition, [A.A.] and his daughter [B.A.] were the victims of repeated threats. […] They allege that, as a result of this intimidation, the [A] family has not returned to live in Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa. Mrs. [B.A.] travels daily to Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa to work at the Women’s Association of the Social Movement and the former mayor [of Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa] provides her with protection through his personal security. Although the petitioners recognize that the Presidential Commission for the Coordination of Human Rights Policies (COPREDEH) offered in May 2008 to initiate a proceeding seeking personal protection for Mrs. [B.A.], they state that they feel that this could put Mrs. [B.A.´s] life at greater risk in view of the fact that there are communications between those who threaten her and the police. […] 19. […] In addition, they state that the threats and intimidation against the relatives following the murder of Mr. [A.A.], forced them to leave their homes in Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa nine days after he was killed, and so far they have not returned to live in the area because they 21 Neither the American Convention, nor the current Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commission nor the Rules of the Commission in force at the time when the Merits Report was issued, contain any rules requiring that the Admissibility Report establish all the rights presumably violated. Furthermore, the Court has indicated that, in the context of proceedings in the Inter-American System, it is possible to change or modify the legal definition of the facts of a specific case. This is clearly reflected in the Court’s consistent case law, according to which the presumed victims and their representatives may invoke the violation of rights other than those included in the Merits Report, provided that these remain within the factual framework. Cf. Case of Five Pensioners v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, supra, para. 155, and Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 132. 22 Cf. Case of Gutiérrez and Family v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2013. Series C No. 271 para. 31, and Case of the Pacheco Tineo Family v. Bolivia, supra, para. 22. 23 Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005, para. 58, and Case Family Pacheco Tineo v. Bolivia, supra, para. 22. 24 Cf. Admissibility Report No. 109/10 of September 8, 2010 (File of the proceedings before the Commission, pages 247 to 252). 11