may claim the violation of rights other than those included in the Merits Report, provided they abide by the facts contained in this document, because the presumed victims are the holders of all the rights recognized in the American Convention. 27 In short, in each case, it is for the Court to decide on the admissibility of arguments regarding the factual framework in order to safeguard the procedural equality of the parties. 28 58. In its submission brief, the Commission indicated that it “submit[ted] to the Court’s jurisdiction all the facts […] described in Merits Report No. 172/10.” Thus, in this case, the Merits Report constitutes the factual framework of the proceedings before the Court. In this regard, Argentina submitted a series of arguments on the facts presented by the representative that supposedly were not included in the Merits Report (supra paras. 22). The Court will now verify whether those facts explain or clarify the facts set out by the Inter-American Commission in the said report and whether they are related to the factual framework of the case. 59. In this regard, the Court observes that the Commission’s factual determinations are found in section IV of the Merits Report entitled “Proven facts.” Thus, even though in this section the Inter-American Commission referred to the legal framework “relevant to juvenile criminal justice,” the specific factual and legal determinations relating to this legal framework address the supposed imposing of sentences of life imprisonment and reclusion for life on César Alberto Mendoza, Lucas Matías Mendoza, Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal, Ricardo David Videla Fernández and Claudio David Núñez, for crimes committed while they were still under 18 years of age, and the appeals filed against these sentences. In addition, the Court observes that, in the Merits Report, the Commission included a section on general facts relating to the “detention condition in the Mendoza Provincial Prison.” However, in section IV on “Proven facts” of the Merits Report, the Commission did not establish specific facts concerning the presumed detention conditions of Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal. The Commission only referred to the situation of Ricardo David Videla Fernández, who was also deprived of liberty in that prison at the time of his death. Additionally, the Court observes that, in section IV in the Merits Report on “Proven facts,” the Inter-American Commission established facts relating to supposed loss of sight of Lucas Matías Mendoza while he was deprived of liberty in the “Luis Agote” Juvenile Center, and the supposed torture suffered by Lucas Matías Mendoza and Claudio David Núñez in Federal Prison Complex I on December 9, 2007. The Commission did not refer to the general conditions of detention in Federal Prison Complex. Moreover, in section IV on the proven facts, as already mentioned in this paragraph, the Commission referred to the “detention conditions in the Mendoza Provincial Prison,” but not to the supposed detention conditions in Federal Prison Complex 1 or in juvenile institutions. 60. In her pleadings and motions brief, the representative submitted factual pleadings that were not included in the Merits Report on the treatment in custody and the detention conditions that the five above-mentioned youths supposedly suffered; other acts of torture that, according to the representative had been suffered by Lucas Matías Mendoza and Claudio David Núñez after the torture alleged in the Merits Report, and the supposed erroneous classification of Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal as a repeat offender. 27 Cf. Case of the Five Pensioners v. Peru, para. 155, and Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (In vitro fertilization) v. Costa Rica, para. 131. 28 Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 58, and Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (In vitro fertilization) v. Costa Rica, para. 131. 22