35. The Commission pointed out that the Court’s jurisprudence has been clear in establishing that the representatives may invoke the violation of rights other than those included in the Merits Report, as long as they are related to the factual framework defined by the Commission. 36. Similarly, the representatives indicated that their claims were based on the actions of the administrative and judicial authorities described in the factual framework of the Merits Report. They argued that the alleged violation of Articles 7 and 13 of the American Convention arose from the actions of the administrative and judicial authorities, which are described in the Merits Report. B.2 Considerations of the Court 37. The Court reiterates that the representatives of the alleged victims may invoke the violation of rights other than those included in the Merits Report, as long as they remain within the factual framework defined by the Commission. Consequently, it is for the Court to decide on the appropriateness of arguments related to the factual framework, thereby safeguarding the procedural balance of the parties. 29 38. In the instant case, the Court notes that the representatives based the alleged violation of Articles 7 and 13 of the American Convention on the alleged failure to investigate, prosecute and punish the acts of discrimination claimed by Mr. Olivera Fuentes. Since the Commission has limited the facts of the case to the analysis of the domestic administrative and jurisdictional proceedings, the Court concludes that the inclusion in the pleadings and motions brief of other rights allegedly violated during those proceedings falls within the factual framework defined in the Merits Report. VI EVIDENCE A. Admissibility of the documentary evidence 39. The Court received various documents presented as evidence by the Commission and the representatives, which, as in other cases, are admitted on the understanding that they were submitted at the proper procedural opportunity (Article 57 of the Rules of Procedure). 30 40. The Court notes that the representatives submitted, together with their brief of 29 Cf. Case of “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 155, and Case of Casierra Quiñonez et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 22. 30 Documentary evidence may be presented, in general and in accordance with Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, together with the briefs submitting the case, of pleadings and motions or the answering brief, as appropriate, and evidence submitted outside those procedural opportunities is not admissible, except in the exceptions established in Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure (namely, force majeure, serious impediment) or if it concerns a supervening fact, i.e., one that occurred after the aforementioned procedural moments. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra, para. 140, and Case of Leguizamón Zaván v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 15, 2022. Series C. No. 473, para. 28. 14