- 18 - effects and consequences on this Court’s analysis of the other alleged facts and violations, insofar as they all form part of the same set of circumstances. 43 41. Based on the foregoing and its attributes as an international organ for the protection of human rights, the Court finds it necessary, in light of the characteristics of the facts of this case, to deliver a judgment in which it determines the facts that occurred based on the evidence submitted in the proceedings before this Court, because this will contribute to making reparation to the victims, avoiding a repetition of similar facts and, in sum, satisfying the purposes of the inter-American jurisdiction over human rights. 42. Furthermore, and to ensure a better understanding of the international responsibility of States, and the causal nexus between the violations found and the reparations ordered, the Court considers it pertinent to describe the human rights violations committed in this case. VI PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS A. The factual framework of the case 43. The State asserted that, in their motions and pleadings brief, the representatives had added new facts with regard to the context that the Commission had not included in its Merits Report. Thus, the State asked the Court, when considering the context of the case, not to take into account the new allegations of the victims’ representatives concerning “supposed practices related to the use of force, torture and violence against women, which the Commission had not referred to in its Merits Report.��� 44. The representatives argued that the purpose of the said facts was to explain, provide context to, and clarify the facts mentioned by the Commission in the Merits Report, and that they also referred to the claims of the State or to facts that form part of the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility. 45. This Court recalls that the factual framework of the proceedings before it is constituted by the facts contained in the Merits Report submitted to its consideration. Consequently, it is not admissible for the parties to allege new facts that differ from those included in the said report, without prejudice to presenting those that explain, clarify or reject the facts mentioned in the report and that have been submitted to the Court’s consideration.44 The exception to this principle are facts that are classified as supervening or when facts become known subsequently, or access to evidence about them becomes available, provided that such facts are relate to the facts of the proceedings. Ultimately, in each case, it is for the Court to decide on the admissibility of arguments relating to the factual framework in order to safeguard the procedural balance between the parties.45 Cf. Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 14, 2014. Series C No. 287, para. 27, and Case of Ramírez Escobar et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 9, 2018. Series C No. 351, para. 35. 43 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 Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 23, 2018. Series C No. 359, para. 152. 44 Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 58, and Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 23, 2018. Series C No. 359, para. 152. 45