-814. Regarding the first preliminary objection, the State maintained that the representatives were asking that “new acts and allegations” contained in the brief with petitions and motions be evaluated by the Court. The State argued that the “case before the Court is limited to the facts in the Merits Report,” which “is the factual framework of the proceedings that establishes the limits of the claims.” The State also indicated that the alleged new facts and arguments “were never debated nor discussed in the proceedings before the Commission” and it requested that the “new allegations and arguments” be “excluded and omitted in the decision on the merits.” 15. The State specifically referred to the allegations of the representatives that are summarized as follows: (i) The use of public force by the Armed Forces, governed by Legislative Decree N° 1095; (ii) The sentence of Antonio Mauricio Evangelista Pinedo imposed by the National Criminal Chamber supposedly did not consider the seriousness of the infringed duties; (iii) The next of kin of the alleged victims were not able to challenge the sentence, pursuant to Article 290 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; (iv) The sentence was not proportional to the harm caused to the alleged victims; (v) The sentence was not fully served, since Antonio Mauricio Evangelista Pinedo was granted limited freedom and only spent one year and six months in prison; (vi) The next of kin of the alleged victims had no role in the proceedings that granted the limited freedom and requested a judicial review; (vii) Only the direct perpetrator of the incident was tried and punished, ignoring that he responded to hierarchical superiors, state agents who did not effectively control their subordinates, and (viii) There was no punishment for the failure to aid the victims of the gunshots. 16. The representatives maintained that the parts objected to by the State were within the factual framework, which contextualizes and clarifies the events included in the Merits Report. They added that “both parties had many opportunities to exercise their right to defense” on the matter and that it is “completely false that those events had not been debated in the relevant proceedings.” For its part, the Commission considered that the arguments of the State were not in the nature of a preliminary objection, but rather dealt with a matter of substance and that the events or allegations pointed out by the State had a “direct relationship” to the factual framework in the Report. The representatives and the Commission indicated the relevant paragraphs in the Merits Report concerning each of the referred-to allegations (supra para. 15). 17. The Court considers that the State filed the preliminary objection with specific reference to some “new acts and allegations” included by the representatives in their brief with petitions and motions. However, it notes that the allegations to which the State refers relate to matters of law and not to new facts, so it is not an issue of admissibility nor of the jurisdiction of the Court that must be resolved as a preliminary objection, as was requested by the State. 18. The Court recalls that its consistent case law permits changing or varying the legal determination of the facts that are the object of a specific case within the context of a proceeding in the inter-American system and that the alleged victims and their representatives may invoke a violation of a right other than those included in the complaint or in the Merits Report, as long as it is related to the content of the Report because the alleged victims are beneficiaries of each right recognized in the Convention.7 Cf. Case of the Five Pensioners v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 155 and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, Members and Activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 29, 2014. Series C No. 279, para. 38. 7