appointed legal counsel, Fernando Morales Cabala.” The Court considers that the representative’s arguments do not affect the admissibility of the documents presented by the State; rather, they concern their evidentiary value, which will be taken into consideration in the merits of the case. A.2. Admissibility of testimonial and expert evidence 35. The Court considers it appropriate to admit the statement and the expert assessment given at the public hearing, insofar as they agree with the objective defined by the Presidency in the order that requested them24 and the purpose of this case. VI PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATION 36. The Court notes that in the brief containing pleadings, motions and evidence, the representative referred to the imprisonment conditions of the alleged victim 25 and the alleged context of unlawful and irregular actions by members of the Army of Peru from 1992 to 1995. 37. As repeatedly indicated in the jurisprudence of the Court, the Report on the Merits constitutes the factual background of the proceedings before the Court; therefore, it is not admissible to allege new facts different from those presented in that report, without detriment to presenting those that may explain, clarify or reject the facts that have been mentioned in the application, or that are consistent with the claims of the plaintiff.26 The exception to this principle is supervening facts, which can be presented to the Court at any stage of the proceeding before judgment has been delivered. Ultimately, it corresponds to the Court to decide in each case the admissibility of claims related to the factual background while protecting the procedural balance of the parties.27 38. In this regard, the Court observes that in the Report on the Merits, the Commission only presented allegations regarding three proceedings opened against Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio: (i) military disciplinary proceedings; (ii) military criminal proceedings; and (iii) ordinary criminal proceedings; all of these related to his participation in an assigned operation (supra paras. 29 and 30). The Commission did not refer to the detention conditions of the alleged victim or to an alleged context of unlawful and irregular actions by members of the Army of Peru. These facts do not help explain, clarify or reject the facts mentioned in the Report on the Merits and they cannot be classified as supervening facts. Therefore, the Court will not adjudge on these facts claimed by the representative, since they are not part of the factual background presented by the Commission. VII FACTS 39. The Court will establish the facts of the instant case in the following order: (a) regarding the alleged victim and background of the three proceedings against him; (b) investigation by the In the public hearing, the Court received the statement of the alleged victim, Jorge Enrique Rosadio Villavicencio, and the expert witness, Hernán Víctor Gullco, which were proposed by the representative and the Commission, respectively. The purpose of these statements were set forth in the Order of the President of the Inter-American Court issued on December 6, 2018. Available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/rosadiovillavicencio_06_12_18.pdf. 25 That the General Commander of the Leoncio Prado detachment allegedly did not bring Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio before the judge until December 5, 1994, 68 days after the request, and he was placed in a hole, in a very reduced space, along with eight other persons, for more than 110 days, from December 5, 1994 to March 20, 1995; that “during the 45 days that he was detained and in isolation[,] [the officers of the High Command of the Leoncio Prado detachment] tried to break his will [Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio’s] so that he would sign the statement indicating that he was aware of the Operation Plan “LIMPIEZA 94”; and that he was allegedly “taken by the personnel, without any prior notice, from his cell to the Hearings Chamber of the criminal establishment where he was serving his sentence.” 26 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003, paras. 153-155, and Case of Valenzuela Ávila v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 11, 2019. Series C No. 386, para. 40. 27 Cf. Case of the "Mapiripán Massacre" v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of March 7, 2005, para. 58, and Case of Valenzuela Ávila v. Guatemala, supra note 26, para. 40. 24 11