B. Considerations of the Court 31. The Court has established that the factual framework of the proceedings before it consists of the facts contained in the Merits Report submitted to the Court’s consideration. Accordingly, it is not admissible to assert new facts other than those in the application, unless they explain, clarify, or refute facts given in the Merits Report, or answer any of the Commission’s claims (also called “supplementary facts”). The exception to this principle is facts that qualify as supervening, which can be submitted to the Court at any stage of the proceedings prior to the delivery of judgment.32 32. The State holds that the context of the so-called “historical debt” owed to teachers is external to the corpus of facts in the instant case. The Court would note, however, that the context being questioned by the State is associated with the Commission’s findings on the factual framework developed in its Merits Report under section “A. Context of the ‘historical debt’ to Chilean teachers.” This Court deems, therefore, that Report No. 12/19 does indeed raise these facts, which therefore do fit into the factual framework as background information and as part of the context surrounding the execution of the thirteen judgments on behalf of the teachers covered by the instant case and are therefore admissible and will be considered in the relevant section of the merits. 33. As for the question of how to classify the amounts awarded in the judgments, the Commission itself recalled in its Merits Report that, “starting with the admissibility stage, it was clearly established that the object of the [Commission’s] analysis in this report is limited to the State’s obligation to ensure execution of its courts’ final, non-appealable verdicts, in light of the applicable provisions of the American Convention.” Thus, the declarative processes that led to these judgments whose enforcement is under discussion lay outside the corpus of facts of the case submitted to the Court. The discussion on the nature of the debts would require an analysis of how they were described in the declarative processes concerning the amounts owed and whether they qualified as pension payments, which would therefore lie outside the jurisdiction of the Court in the instant case. The Court therefore will not judge on whether the amounts could potentially be considered pension funds, but instead will focus its analysis on the alleged barriers to achieving enforcement of the thirteen judgments for the teachers covered by this case. VI EVIDENCE A. Admissibility of documentary evidence 34. The Court received documents submitted as evidence by the Commission and the parties, together with their main briefs (supra paras. 1, 6 and 7), as well as those requested by the Court as helpful evidence.33 As in other cases, the Court receives only those documents that are submitted within the established time limits (Article 57 of the Rules of Procedure)34 by the parties 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 Vera Rojas et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 38. 32 The Court judges asked the representatives at the hearing for up-to-date information on the ages and, in some cases, deaths of the alleged victims, and this information was submitted as an annex to the representatives’ final written arguments. 33 Documentary evidence may be submitted, generally and in keeping with Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, together with the briefs included in the application, whether the brief of motions and arguments, or the answering brief, and no evidence may be admitted if presented outside these time limits, except in the cases set forth in Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure (that is, force majeure or serious impediment), or in the case of a supervening fact that took place subsequently to these procedural stages. 34 12