to this principle are the facts classified as supervening and those facts with respect to which knowledge or access is subsequently obtained, provided that they are linked to the facts of the proceedings. All of the foregoing without prejudice to the fact that the presumed victims and their representatives may allege the violation of rights other than those indicated by the Commission in the Merits Report, as long as they abide by the facts contained in said document. Ultimately, it is up to the Court to decide in each case about the admissibility of arguments related to the factual framework in order to safeguard the procedural balance of the parties.17 41. In this regard, the State argued that the representatives in the pleadings and motions brief presented "an expanded account of the facts," that is, new facts that were allegedly not considered in the factual framework of the Merits Report, which it considers violates its right of defense. 42. Therefore, the State requested that the facts indicated by the representatives in relation to: (a) “the affirmation on the increase in cases of kidnapping; (b) the creation of the Anti-Kidnapping Command of the National Civil Police [which used…] illegal investigation methods for people sentenced to death for the crime of kidnapping to obtain information on other cases; (c) the organization of the Plan Cazador to capture and extrajudicially execute the escapees from “El Infiernito” Prison in 2001; (d) the corruption and penetration of organized crime in the apparatus of the State; (e) the political crisis generated by the murder of three Salvadoran deputies and the execution in a cell of the four police officers identified as perpetrators of their execution; (f) the contents of the wallet of Mr. Valenzuela Ávila's body; (g) the facts that give rise to the affirmation that Guatemala violated the right to the family of the alleged victim due to the harassment suffered by Mr. Valenzuela Ávila's wife and children; (h) regarding the ex officio revocation made by the Seventh Chamber of the Court of Appeals for the Criminal Branch based in Quetzaltenango, regarding the acquittal in first instance of Mr. JLM, and (i) all the statements and accounts made by the representatives regarding to the death of EMF and WBC, fugitives from “El Infiernito” prison and the content of the recapture of: 1. MTL, 2. LAS, 3. JGP and 4. ILC within the framework of “Operation Gavilán”. 43. In effect, the Court notes that these facts argued by the representatives are not related to the facts mentioned in the Merits Report and the death of Mr. Valenzuela Ávila, therefore they will not be taken into account in the evidentiary analysis of this case. 44. The State also requested that the facts alleged by the representatives in the pleadings and motions brief related to the repressive criminal policy that includes the legal reform to include the death penalty for kidnapping cases be discarded; an organization that operated through an alleged “systematic pattern of extrajudicial executions”; the existence of groups dedicated to social cleansing in the National Civil Police (hereinafter also “PNC”); and the conclusions on “Operation Gavilán”, in relation to the extrajudicial execution of other fugitives from “El Infiernito” prison. However, the Court notes that these facts alleged by the representatives do form part of the factual framework of the Commission's Merits Report. 45. Effectively, the Commission introduces a chapter in the Merits Report on the death of the alleged victim and the framework of “Operation Gavilán”, in which it refers to: (a) the creation of “Operation Gavilán”, for the search and recapture of the 19 people who escaped from “El Infiernito” maximum security prison; (b) that within said operation, nine of the Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 58, and Case of Women victims of sexual torture in Atenco v. Mexico, supra, para. 45. 17 12