also made allegations about the violation of the right to work. It asked the Court not to assess the allegations related to violations "declared inadmissible in the [Commission’s] Admissibility Report, because they were not clearly defined and explained." 51. Mr. Valenzuela Cerna’s representatives stated that the alleged rights arise from the "analysis of the facts that make up the causal material of the case, therefore, they do not modify, alter or disturb the factual framework of the dispute which remains intact". In addition, they stated that such procedure is supported by the Court's case law. 52. The Commission stated that the alleged victims and their representatives may invoke the violation of other rights not contained in the Merits Report, as long as they confine themselves to the facts of that brief. A.1.2 Considerations of the Court 53. This Court, in the face of the State's arguments, has repeatedly considered that the representatives or the alleged victims may invoke rights other than those indicated by the Commission, as the latter are the holders of the rights enshrined in the American Convention. Denying them this power would imply an undue restriction on their condition as subjects of International Human Rights Law. In any case, the case law has required that said allegations be based on the factual framework established in the Merits Report. 28 However, this Court has verified that, in Mr. Valenzuela’s brief of motions and pleadings, it did not cite or present specific allegations regarding the violation of Articles 5 and 11 of the Convention in this case. Nor did Messrs. Valenzuela and Díaz and Ms. Rodríguez cite Article 26 in their brief of requests and arguments, nor present arguments to support the violation. 54. Therefore, the Court finds that the State's arguments, in relation to an improper inclusion of Articles 5, 11 and 26 of the American Convention in the aforementioned motions and pleadings briefs, are not admissible, without prejudice to the considerations made by this Tribunal on the merits. A.2. On the alleged improper inclusion of facts and allegations proposed by the representatives of Walter Antonio Valenzuela Cerna A.2.1 Arguments of the State and observations of the Commission and the representatives 55. The State indicated that the alleged victims cannot propose new facts other than those presented by the Commission in its Merits Report and indicated that the Commission did not consider within the factual framework information related to the retroactive application of the Peruvian Political Constitution of 1993 in relation to Mr. Valenzuela Cerna. 56. Mr. Valenzuela Cerna’s representatives indicated that the State confuses the detailed contextualization of the events, with the inclusion of new events. In this sense, they indicated that it is the Court that must ultimately determine its factual platform. 57. The Commission indicated that the factual framework of the process is constituted by the facts of the Merits Report, allowing presentation of facts that explain, clarify or reject those that have been mentioned in the Merits Report. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Commission emphasized that the factual determinations do contain that on June 1, 2002, the National Council 28 Cf. Case of the Pacheco Tineo Family v. Bolivia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2013, para. 22, and Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 22. 15