37. Based on the foregoing, the Court considers that the acts mentioned by the representatives cannot be determined to be the consequences of an acknowledgment of international responsibility by the State. As a result, the Court finds that it must rule on the controversy and study the matter of the alleged violations. B. Factual framework of the case B.1. State's arguments 38. The State argued that in their pleadings and motions brief, the representatives referred to “a supposed historical context that bears no relation to the facts” of the case, since “they tried to connect” what happened “to an alleged pattern of ' State terrorism,' and [a] a 'systematic and repressive plan to combat insurgency, promoted by the entire state apparatus and with the support of the economic and political elites,'” with which they would have “intended to give the facts […] the legal qualification of 'crimes against humanity.'” 39. It pointed out that what was indicated by the Inter-American Public Defenders corresponds to a “context completely unrelated to the factual and situation of the case at that moment in time,” in which “there was no political persecution, nor [was] it alleged.” It requested that “the arguments based on [said] assertions be dismissed” by the Court. B.2. Considerations of the Court 40. This Court has reiterated that the factual framework of the proceeding is constituted by the facts contained in the Report on the Merits submitted for its consideration, for which it is not admissible to allege facts other than those stated in said brief. That said, the Court does accept that facts may be presented that facilitate explaining, clarifying, or dismissing those that were mentioned in the Merits Report or to respond to the Commission's claims (also called “complementary facts”). The exception to this principle are the facts that qualify as supervening, which may be referred to the Court at any stage of the process before issuing its Judgment.22 41. When analyzing the proceedings, the Court indicates that in their pleadings and motions brief, the representatives referred to a "context" in which they included, among other issues, certain elements indicated by the State, while at the same time referring to other historical circumstances that occurred before the Truth Commission was created. 42. In this regard, without prejudging the reasons for which such facts were alluded to in the representatives' brief, it should be noted that the content of the Merits Report omits any reference to them. On that account, as requested by the State, the Court will not include in its analysis the facts referring to the “context” described by the Inter-American Public Defenders. Without prejudice to determining the scope of the final report of the Truth Commission, the above, with regard to the inclusion of the acts that were allegedly perpetrated against the Casierra Quiñonez brothers and their family members, is part of the factual framework of the case (infra paras. 89 , 90, and 91). In any case, the Court indicates that the use of said report does not exempt it from evaluating the body of evidence as a whole, in accordance with the rules of logic and based on experience.23 VI Cf. Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2011. Series C No. 226, para. 32, and Case of Teachers of Chañaral and other municipalities v. Chile. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 10, 2021. Series C No. 443, para. 31. 23 Cf. Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 194, para. 101, and Case of Grijalva Bueno v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 03, 2021. Series C No. 426, para. 129. 22 11