of Procedure, according to which when it can be justified that it had not been possible to identify them, in cases of massive or collective violations, the Court will decide whether to consider such individuals as victims based on the nature of the violation. 14 24. The Court notes that none of the exceptions established in Article 35(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure are constituted in the instant case. Consequently, owing to the provisions of Article 35(1) of the Rules of Procedure and the precedents in which this Court has ruled in this regard, 15 the Court concludes that it will only consider Hugo Humberto Ruiz Fuentes and his sister as alleged victims in this case, and it is not appropriate to admit the other family members as alleged victims. B. Determination of the factual framework 25. The Court notes that, in their pleadings and motions brief, the representatives referred to numerous facts16 that allegedly violated Article 7(1), 7(2), 7(3), 7(4) and 7(5) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument.17 They also alleged that Article 5(1) and (2) had been violated owing to the absence of adequate medical care and the prison conditions to which Mr. Ruiz Fuentes was subjected.18 26. The Court has established that the factual framework of the proceedings before it consists of the facts contained in the Merits Report submitted to its consideration.19 Therefore, it is not admissible to allege new facts that differ from those described in the said report, without prejudice to describing facts that explain, clarify or reject those mentioned in the application, or that respond to the claims of the applicant (also called “supplementary facts”). The exception to this principle are those facts that are classified as supervening, and these can be submitted to the Court at any stage of the proceedings prior to the delivery of the judgment. 20 27. In the instant case, the Court notes that the Commission did not include the facts alleged by the representatives in relation to the alleged violation of Article 7 and Article 5 (regarding the alleged inadequate medical care provided to Mr. Ruiz Fuentes) within the factual framework or as a substantial consideration. Therefore, the Court determines that it will not rule on the said facts alleged by the representatives. Furthermore, the Court will not refer to the legal arguments made Judgment of September 2, 2019. Series C No. 382, para. 25. 14 Cf. Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 4, 2012. Series C No. 250, para. 48, and Case of Martínez Coronado v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 10, 2019. Series C No. 376, para. 18. 15 Cf. Case of Omeara Carrascal et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2018. Series C No. 368, paras. 55 and 56, and Case of Martínez Coronado v. Guatemala, supra, para. 19. 16 In general, these facts refer to the alleged unlawful and arbitrary detention of Mr. Ruiz Fuentes that failed to respect the guarantees contained in Article 7(4) and (5) of the American Convention (violation of Articles 7(1), 7(2), 7(3), 7(4) and 7(5) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument). 17 The representatives argued that: (i) the detention of Mr. Ruiz Fuentes was unlawful and arbitrary; (ii) he was not informed of the reasons for his detention and the charges against him, and (iii) his detention was not subject to judicial control. 18 The representatives indicated that the State of Guatemala had not provided adequate medical care to Mr. Ruiz Fuentes while he was deprived of liberty. They indicated that the second intervention required by Mr. Ruiz Fuentes to close his colostomy bag and re-establish his intestinal transmit had been delayed several weeks. They added that all the unjustified delays in providing Mr. Ruiz Fuentes with the postoperative care he needed caused the victim to develop an infection in the wound that resulted in health problems that required additional medical treatment in Roosevelt Hospital. The representatives also indicated that the prison conditions to which Mr. Ruiz Fuentes was subject were extremely severe and contrary to human dignity, and highlighted, among others: overcrowding, poor nutrition, serious deficiencies in the basic hygiene infrastructure, absence of an acceptable medical and psychological service to counteract the anguish and stress from which he suffered, very few education and work opportunities and, also, severe restrictions on visits. 19 That is: (1) the detention of Mr. Ruiz Fuentes and the alleged acts of torture; (2) the alleged flaws in the context of the criminal proceedings; (3) the imposition of the death sentence; (4) the subsequent death of Mr. Ruiz Fuentes, and (5) the alleged violations of the personal integrity of Mr. Ruiz Fuentes’ sister. 20 Cf. Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2011. Series C No. 226, para. 32, and Case of Villamizar Durán et al. v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2018. Series C No. 364, para. 49. 8