of the Judiciary summoned Mr. Valenzuela Cerna to an evaluation and ratification process. Although the factual determinations do not expressly reflect the petitioner's allegation that his career was regulated by the 1979 Constitution, this is a supplementary fact or allegation insofar as it does not refer to a new fact, but rather indicates the conditions under which the evaluation and ratification process was called. Furthermore, regarding the State's argument that the Merits Report does not analyze the retroactive application of the Political Constitution in the case of Walter Valenzuela Cerna, in this regard the Commission stated that this is not related to the facts, but to the assessment of the right in light of the same, and as indicated, the alleged victims and their representatives may present different arguments provided they are subject to the determined factual framework. A.2.2 Considerations of the Court 58. Regarding the improper inclusion of facts and allegations related to the alleged retroactive application of the 1993 Constitution in Mr. Valenzuela's motions and pleadings brief, the Court recalls that, although the allegations are required to be based on the factual framework established in the Merits Report, it has also indicated that facts can be presented that allow the explanation, clarification or rejection of those that have been mentioned in the Merits Report 29. In this regard, the Commission's Merits Report specifically refers to the fact that “he entered the judicial profession as a Judge of the Third Small Claims Court of Surco y Surquillo on January 10, 1985, under the validity of the Peruvian Political Constitution of 1979, which in article 242, paragraph 2, guaranteed tenure in service until the age of 70.” From the foregoing, this Court concludes that the factual determinations expressly reflect that Mr. Valenzuela was linked to the Judiciary since 1985 and even refers to the petitioner's allegation that his career was regulated by the 1979 Constitution. Alternatively, regarding the State's argument that the Merits Report does not analyze the retroactive application of the 1993 Political Constitution in the case of Walter Valenzuela Cerna, the Court reiterates that the alleged victims and their representatives can present arguments related to the violation of rights under the convention other than those contained in the Merits Report provided that they adhere to the factual framework determined. A.3. On the two preliminary observations presented by the State 59. Finally, the State presented two “preliminary observations,” the first called “accumulation of petitions under the erroneous idea that they presented a factual identity: Difference in the case of Mr. Walter Antonio Valenzuela Cerna”, and the second called “mistaken comparison between the Process of Ratification of Magistrates and the Disciplinary Process”. Regarding the first question, the Court notes that the State did not make any petition, therefore it will not rule on the matter, but it will take into account the arguments of the State, when examining the merits of the case. Regarding the second question, this Court considers that it is a substantive argument, which will be examined later in this Judgment. VI EVIDENCE A. Admissibility of documental evidence 60. The Court received various documents presented as evidence by the Commission, the representatives, and the State, attached to their main briefs (supra para. 1, 6, and 7). In this case, as in others, 30 this Court admits the probative value of those documents presented by the parties and by the Commission at the due procedural opportunity or requested as additional 29 Cf. Case of “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Fund, supra, para. 153 and Case of Bedoya Lima et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 26, 2021. Series C No. 431, para. 16. 30 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140, and Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 34. 16