9 a publication titled “enemies of the people.” The State argued that it found itself “in a state of defenseless” without being able to make arguments on the failure to exhaust domestic remedies on these facts before the Commission, since they occurred after the admissibility report. 30. The Commission observed that the published propaganda “was a supervening fact in the framework of the criminal investigation carried out against Messrs. Arrom and Martí in Paraguay and additional evidence of the absence of guarantees in said process, including the guarantee of impartiality.” Therefore, “it is not necessary to continue demanding the exhaustion of domestic remedies in relation to each fact of this nature.” It added that “if the State considered that these facts were not supervening and had such entity and independence to demand the exhaustion of domestic remedies in an autonomous manner, it should have raised such issue in the proceedings before the Commission at the first opportunity.” 31. The representatives argued that the State had the opportunity to present this objection when the case was before the Commission, but it did not. They argued that the publications from 2010 onwards “should be understood as one more act related to the illegal persecution of [the alleged victims], which [...] continues [...] to this date.” B.2 Considerations of the Court 32. In the present case, the State argued before the Court that domestic remedies had not been exhausted with respect to a publication circulated in 2010 entitled “Enemies of the Paraguayan People WANTED”, which includes Juan Arrom and Anuncio Martí, offering a reward of up to five hundred million of guaraníes (₲500,000,000) for useful information that leads to their capture.17 Despite the State referring to this as a preliminary objection, due to the failure to exhaust local remedies, it is clear that what is actually being objected to is the inclusion of these facts in the process before the Inter-American System, from reading the State's arguments. 33. The aforementioned publication is included in the Report on the Merits and both the Commission and the representatives alleged violations of the American Convention in this regard. This publication is related to the criminal investigation carried out against Mr. Arrom and Mr. Martí in Paraguay for their alleged participation in the kidnapping of María Edith Bordón de Debernardi. 34. According to the Court's jurisprudence, the factual framework of a case before the Court is made up of the facts contained in the Report on the Merits submitted for its consideration.18 However, when an allegation such as the one made by the Paraguayan State is made, it is necessary to examine whether the aforementioned facts are really part of the object of the case whose admissibility was examined by the Commission, and if these could be considered supervening facts. 35. The Admissibility Report analyzes the alleged detention and torture of the alleged victims and the criminal investigation carried out regarding these facts.19 After the case was determined admissible, on August 23, 2010, the representatives referred to the campaign initiated by the State where a reward was offered to whoever provided information on the whereabouts of the alleged victims.20 In response to this brief, the State indicated that the alleged victims are Cf. Copy of the notice entitled "Enemies of the Paraguayan People, WANTED" (evidence file, f. 704). 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. 47, and Case of Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2018. Series C No. 371, para. 45. 19 Cf. IACHR, Report No. 86/08, Petition 04-03, Admissibility, Juan Francisco Arrom Suhurt, Anuncio Martí Méndez, Víctor Antonio Colmán Ortega, Ana Rosa Samudio de Colmán, Jorge Samudio Ferreira and their next of kin, Paraguay, October 30 of 2008. 20 Cf. Brief of the representatives of August 23, 2010 (evidence file, f. 1659). 17 18