allegations that were never analyzed in the proceedings before the Commission,” since, in addition to the fact that the allegation of the violation of Article 21 of the American Convention “was not declared to be admissible […], [ …] those claims were not invoked” in said proceeding. 19. It indicated that, in accordance with Article 35(3) of the Court's Rules of Procedure and the latter's consistent case law, the aforementioned claim is not part of the factual framework of the case, and that the pleadings and motions brief does not correspond to the procedural stage for “submitting new claims.” It requested application of the procedural principle whereby the start of one stage in a lawsuit terminates the prior stage and precludes its being raised again, and, consequently, that the representatives' claim be dismissed as inadmissible. 20. The representatives argued that, contrary to Ecuador's statements, "the damage caused to the boat owned by Mrs. Shirley Lourdes Quiñonez Bone, has been reliably established in two paragraphs of the factual framework," included in the Merits Report, added to the fact that, during the procedure before the Commission, the pertinent documents were attached to prove the boat's ownership. 21. The Commission stated that, although in the Merits Report it did not carry out a legal analysis of the right to property, the arguments that the representatives made to this regard “are within the factual framework,” while in Report No. 14/ 19 found that “the boat in which the death of Luis Eduardo and Alejandro's injuries occurred, was […] owned by Shirley Quiñonez,” and that “the boat was in the possession of the State for the purpose of conducting a judicial inspection where it was found that it had at least [forty-nine] holes caused by the use of firearms.” He added that it will correspond to the Court, by virtue of the principle iura novit curia, to determine whether it analyzes the arguments presented by the representatives. B. Considerations of the Court 22. The Court has indicated that in this case, the State invoked a preliminary objection of “lack of jurisdiction” of the Court as to the representatives’ argument of violation of the right to property, given that this was not analyzed during the proceedings before the Commission and, as indicated, would go beyond the case’s factual framework. Furthermore, case law has affirmed that the presumed victims and their representatives may invoke the violation of rights other than those expressly analyzed in the Merits Report, provided that their allegations remain within the factual framework defined by the Commission, inasmuch as the presumed victims enjoy all the rights enshrined in the American Convention. In such cases, it is up to the Court to decide on the admissibility of arguments related to the factual framework, safeguarding the procedural balance of the parties. 8 23. In instant case, it is noted that the Inter-American Public Defenders, in the pleadings and motions brief, alleged the violation of the right to property, recognized in Article 21 of the Convention. The State's preliminary objection refers both to the questioning of the allegation of a right that was not invoked or analyzed during the proceedings before the Commission, and to the non-observance of the factual framework by the representatives. 24. To this effect, in accordance with the case law cited, it is concluded that the representatives are empowered to formulate said claim and that this Court has the jurisdiction to analyze it. Therefore, the allegations about the violation of the right to property are based on the alleged damage caused to the boat owned by Mrs. Shirley Lourdes Quiñonez Bone resulting from the actions of state agents on the day of the events, which adjusts to the factual Cf. Case of "Five Pensioners" v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 155; Case of the Pacheco Tineo Family v. Bolivia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2013. Series C No. 272, para. 22, and Case Digna Ochoa and Family Members v. Mexico Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2021. Series C No. 447, para. 33. 8 7