Mexican State. 34. The Commission and the representatives recalled that the representatives have autonomy with respect to the Admissibility and Merits reports to submit arguments on various human rights violations, as long as these are based on the factual framework of the Merits Report. They understood that the facts invoked as violations of Article 11 of the American Convention are included within the factual framework of the case, as set forth in Merits Report No. 13/20. A.2. Considerations of the Court 35. In relation to the foregoing, the Court recalls its consistent case law according to which the alleged victims and their representatives may invoke the violation of rights other than those included in the Merits Report, as long as they remain within the factual framework defined by the Commission. 38 In the instant case, the said framework includes facts that support the alleged violations of the right to honor and dignity, contained in Article 11 of the American Convention, to the detriment of the alleged victims; consequently, the State’s argument is inadmissible. 39 B. Determination of possible victims B.1. Arguments of the parties and the Commission 36. The State asked the Court not to proceed with the analysis of the violations alleged by the representatives, to the detriment of the persons that the Commission did not identify as victims of the case in the Merits Report. It referred in particular to the examination of possible violations of the right to personal integrity and to honor and dignity of the next of kin of the alleged victims, and of possible violations of the rights to personal liberty, judicial guarantees and judicial protection of Isaías García Godínez, Martín Moreno Rodríguez and Elvia Moreno Rodríguez. 37. The representatives indicated that the exclusion of these victims was due to a material error on the part of the Commission; they considered that, in this case, the requirements for them to be considered as victims were met. They also requested that the Court review the Commission’s decisions regarding the alleged victims in the case. In addition, they noted that the exclusion of alleged victims in the Merits Report does not prevent them from being considered as such in the proceedings before the Court. Furthermore, they mentioned the possibility of recognition of other alleged victims motu proprio by the Mexican State, which could occur as a result of the various meetings of dialogue and rapprochement between the representatives and the State, with the aim of reaching agreements related to the substantiation of the case. The Commission did not present any arguments on this point. B.2. Considerations of the Court 38. In the instant case, the Court notes that the Commission identified Daniel García Rodríguez and Reyes Alpízar Ortiz as the alleged victims in its Merits Report. For their part, the representatives argued that the next of kin of Daniel García Rodríguez and Reyes Alpízar Ortiz as well as Isaías García Godínez, Martín Moreno Rodríguez and Elvia Moreno Rodríguez would also be victims in the case. 38 Cf. Case of the Pacheco Tineo Family v. Bolivia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2013. Series C No. 272, para. 22, and Case of Moya Solís v. Peru, supra, para. 32. In particular, the Commission mentioned that the alleged victims were presented to public opinion as being “responsible for the homicide of the mayor,” and that this information was published in: a) the press releases issued by the PGJEM, b) extracts of news articles published in the national press, and c) in a government report during the investigation and processing of the criminal proceedings against them in which they were referred to by the Public Prosecution Service (infra para. 259). 39 -12-