5 the document that defines the factual scope of the litigation before this Tribunal.7 In this sense, the Court has constantly held that “[…] it is not admissible [for the representatives] to allege new facts distinct from those set out in the [Commission’s] application, without detriment to describing facts that explain, clarify or reject those mentioned in the application, or that respond to the claims of the applicant”.8 Accordingly, the Court must look to the Commission’s application to determine whether this is an issue that falls within the factual scope of the case that was submitted for the Court’s adjudication. 14. The Court observes that none of the factual assertions submitted by the representatives with regards to the Afobaka dam can be found in the application submitted by the Commission. Furthermore, some of the issues raised by the representatives involve controversies, such as the State’s alleged plan to increase the level of the dam, that are still pending before Surinamese domestic authorities. 15. Additionally, during the pubic hearing held in the present case, the Commission was asked how it would “characterize the additional information which was presented by the representatives regarding the alleged effects on the Saramaka people of the dam?”.9 The Commission responded that “[t]here is a single sentence in the complaint and in the Article 50 Report relating to the dam and its effects”, and further characterized said information “as a historical fact”.10 Unlike in other cases,11 the Commission has not alleged that this contextual and historical background is related to the subject matter of the controversy. 16. Consequently, in accordance with the application’s structure and object, as well as the Commission’s own clarification as to the manner in which these alleged facts should be understood in the present case, the Court considers that this issue was raised by the Commission only as contextual background involving the history of the controversy in the present case, but not as an issue for the Court’s adjudication. Thus, in accordance with the limitations regarding the alleged victims’ participation in the process before this Court, the Tribunal considers that the factual basis for the representatives’ arguments in this regard falls outside the scope of the controversy as framed by the Commission in its application. 17. In light of the above considerations, and in order to preserve the principle of legal certainty and the right of defense of the State, the Court considers that the representatives’ arguments concerning the alleged ongoing and continuous effects associated with the construction of the Afobaka dam are not admissible. 7 Cf. Article 61 of the American Convention; Articles 32, 33, 36 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, and Articles 2 and 28 of the Court’s Statute. 8 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 153; Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 164, para. 121, and Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 162. 9 Question asked by Judge Macaulay during the public hearing held at the Court on May 9 and 10, 2007 (transcription of public hearing, p. 90). 10 Answer by the Commission to Judge Macaulay’s question during the public hearing at the Court held on May 9 and 10, 2007 (transcription of public hearing, p. 91). 11 Cf. Case of Servellón García et al. v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152; Case of Goiburu et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, and Case of La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163.