V PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS A. The undue inclusion of facts that are not part of the factual framework of the case A.1 Arguments of the State and observations of the Commission and the representatives 27. The State argued that the representatives, in their pleadings and motions brief, referred to facts that are outside the factual framework established by the InterAmerican Commission in the Merits Report, namely: (i) facts related to Mr. Olivera’s expulsion from a gym, which prompted a press release by the Homosexual Movement of Lima, on February 11, 2004, and (ii) the report aired on the television program Reporte Semanal of August 17, 2004, in which a journalist and his partner, of a different sex, deliberately engaged in amorous behavior in order to highlight the different treatment received by persons of diverse sexual orientation in Peru. 28. The Commission emphasized that the case law of the Inter-American Court has clearly established that the facts contained in the Merits Report constitute the factual framework of the case. In this regard, it argued that it was not admissible for the parties to allege new facts other than those included in the Merits Report, without prejudice to subsequently presenting facts that would clarify or refute those mentioned therein. 29. As regards the press report on the alleged act discrimination against Mr. Olivera at the premises of a gym, although the representatives acknowledged that the Merits Report did not explicitly refer to this document, they argued that this piece of evidence had been included in the international proceedings from the time the petition was submitted to the Commission. Similarly, with regard to the report of the television program Reporte Semanal on August 17, 2004, they indicated that the Commission mentions it in paragraphs 17, 20 and 22 of the Merits Report. Furthermore, the representatives emphasized that at no time was it argued that the events of August 17, 2004 constituted additional unlawful acts attributable to the State. On the contrary, they considered that the report in question was “an element that provided clear indications of the frequent discriminatory practices against homosexual couples on the premises of the accused company.” A.2 Considerations of the Court 30. The Court recalls that its case law has been clear in establishing that the factual framework of the proceeding is limited to the facts described in the Merits Report, even though the representatives may present facts that explain, clarify or reject those mentioned in the Commission’s report. 26 26 Cf. Case of Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C. no 298, para. 37, and Casierra Quiñonez et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2022. Series C No. 450, para. 22. 12