V PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS 35. The State raised three points in its answering brief that it designated preliminary objections. 36. This Court notes that the State's questions are aimed at determining the factual framework and the alleged victims. For this reason, the Court considers that the State's arguments do not correspond to a preliminary objection, since they do not challenge the admissibility of the case or the Court’s jurisdiction to hear it, without prejudice to which the State's argument is resolved in this chapter, therefore these allegations will be treated as preliminary questions, and the questions will be analyzed in two sections. A. Regarding the allegation of the inclusion of new facts by the representatives in their pleadings and motions brief A.1. Arguments of the State and observations by the Commission and the representatives 37. The State argued that the representatives presented an expanded account of the events that occurred before and after the multiple arrests of Mr. Valenzuela and within the different situations narrated in the pleadings and motions brief, several are absent in the Merits Report, and they cannot be considered as supervening facts. It added that the information on the new facts, under the pretext of dealing with context, should have been presented in a timely manner before the Commission to guarantee the right to defense and to the adversarial system, and it opposes its inclusion. It also requested that the discussions focus on the reported facts committed against Mr. Valenzuela Ávila after his capture and his trial for the crime of murder and that the new facts be excluded. 38. The representatives considered that the arguments of the State are not of a preliminary objection nature, but of substantive dispute. They added that the information on the context is expressly recorded by the Commission in the Merits Report, and that their application was made within the parameters that the Court must use in order to accurately determine the magnitude and seriousness of the facts. 39. The Commission considered that the information provided by the representatives is not outside the factual framework of the Merits Report, since it explains and clarifies contextual aspects identified therein. The State referred to contextual elements that, in its opinion, are outside the framework of the Merits Report, which cover two aspects: the context of application of the death penalty and the context that caused the death of Mr. Valenzuela Ávila in the framework of the “Operation Gavilan” (“Operation Sparrowhawk”). In this regard, the Commission indicated that both aspects were referred to in the Merits Report, the first from paragraph 62 and the second from paragraph 79. Finally, it requested that said preliminary objection filed by the State be dismissed. A.2. Considerations of the Court 40. The Court recalls that the factual framework of the proceedings is made up of the facts contained in the Merits Report submitted for consideration. Therefore, it is not admissible for the parties to allege facts other than those contained in the Merits Report, without prejudice to putting forward those that allow explanation, clarification or dismissal of those that have been mentioned in it and have been submitted to the consideration of the Court. The exception 11