unnecessary to declare a violation.18 In its final written arguments, the State specified the facts whose inclusion it questioned,19 and emphasized that the factual framework of the case before the Court included, exclusively, the facts contained in the Report and not all the facts that may have been discussed before the Commission. 19. The Commission observed that only the first three categories mentioned by the State are related to facts that could be understood to exceed the factual framework, while the two remaining categories do not per se exceed the factual framework. Thus, with regard to the facts relating to the violation of the right to personal integrity alleged by the representatives, which the Commission, declared had not been proved, it considered that, “in principle, they exceed the factual framework of the case before the Court.” Regarding the facts referred to by the representatives that were not explicitly established in its report, the Commission observed that it was for the Court to establish, on a case by case basis, whether they might be complementary facts.20 Lastly, the Commission considered that the Court had competence to rule on the additional alleged violations described by the representatives that were based on the said factual framework, because the fact that the Commission might have indicated that it was “unnecessary” to make a legal ruling – considering that it was subsumed in another norm – did not mean that the Court could not rule on the said alleged violation. 20. The representatives indicated that the State had confused the facts with the law, because the comparative list that it presented alluded to norms of the Convention rather than to facts. In addition, they argued that, based on the iura novit curia principle, the Court is empowered to make its own determination of the facts of the case, and to decide legal aspects that were not alleged by the parties. They also argued, with regard to the supposed new facts, that the State had contested them in exercise of its right of defense and that they are part of the petition lodged before the Commission, which was expressly ruled on in the report. Even if the Commission did not find the alleged violation of physical integrity, the Court was able to rule in this regard owing to the procedural attributes granted to the presumed victims in the Rules of Procedure. Moreover, prior to their expulsion, the Pacheco family were unable to file a complaint before the Bolivian judicial authorities. Considerations of the Court 21. This Court has established that the facts contained in the Merits Report submitted to its consideration constitute the factual framework of the proceedings before the Court.21 Consequently, it is not admissible for the parties to allege new facts that differ from those contained in this report, notwithstanding the possibility of describing those that explain, clarify or reject the facts that are mentioned in the report and submitted to the Court’s consideration 18 The State again referred to the Commission’s conclusions that Article 5 of the Convention had not been violated with regard to physical integrity, and that it was not necessary to rule on the alleged violation of Article 17 of the Convention. 19 The State contested: “the facts relating to the way in which [the presumed victims] were transported to Peru”; regarding the “supposed mental, moral and physical violence by Stage agents of which they [were allegedly] victims” on both February 20 and 24, 2001; as well as “the facts that occurred under a jurisdiction other than that of Bolivia,” specifically those relating to the detention of Mr. Pacheco and Mrs. Tineo in Peru in 2001; the return of the family to Chile, and all the facts narrated by the presumed victims that supposedly occurred between 2002 and 2012. 20 Also, during the hearing, the Commission stated that “it is one matter to determine that the factual framework of the case before the Court is the facts that the Commission has found to have been proved, and another to consider that the factual framework is what was debated before the Commission in adversarial proceedings.” It indicated that all the legal arguments of the representatives and all the facts on which they were based “were debated before the Commission in adversarial proceedings, and it will correspond to the Court to determine what is understood by the factual framework: if it is what was found to have been proved, or if it is what was debated in the adversarial proceedings.” 21 Cf. Case of the Five Pensioners v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 153, and Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (In vitro fertilization) v. Costa Rica, para. 131. 10