the violation of Article 22 owing to the presumed internal or international displacement of Mercedes Muñoz Rodas, Rudy Alberto Figueroa Maldonado, Ana Dolores Munguía, Renato Guzmán Castañeda, Esteban Salanic Chiguil, and Beatriz María Velásquez. Furthermore, they referred to the presumed 2004 murder of Humberto Alvarado Palencia, who was the son of Alfonso Alvarado Palencia, but was not named as a presumed victim in this case. Regarding these facts, the representatives alleged, inter alia, that no investigation had been opened and, thus, they formed part of the flaws in the investigation into the facts of this case. 34. This Court has established that the factual framework of the proceedings before the Court is constituted by the facts described in the merits report submitted to the Court’s consideration. Consequently, it is not admissible for the parties to allege new facts distinct from those included in the said report, without prejudice to describing those that may explain, clarify or reject the facts that have been mentioned in the report and that have been submitted to the consideration of the Court.31 The exception to this principle, are the facts that are considered to be supervening, provided they are related to the facts of the proceedings. The Court notes that the above-mentioned facts described by the representatives in their pleadings and motions brief do not constitute facts that explain, clarify or reject those contained in the merits report. Consequently, the Court will not take them into account in its decision in this case. VI EVIDENCE 35. Based on the provisions of Articles 50, 57, and 58 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as its case law regarding evidence and its assessment,32 the Court will examine and assess the documentary evidence forwarded by the parties at different procedural opportunities, the statements, testimony and expert opinions provided by affidavit and at the public hearing before the Court, as well as helpful evidence requested by the Court (supra para. 11 and infra para. 47). To this end, the Court will abide by the rules of sound judicial discretion, within the corresponding legal framework. 33 A) Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence 36. The Court has received different documents submitted as evidence by the InterAmerican Commission, the representatives, and the State, attached to their main briefs (supra paras. 1, 5 and 6). In addition, the Court has received affidavits prepared by: presumed victims Manuel Ismael Salanic Tuc, Natalia Gálvez Soberanis, Carla Fabiola Alvarado Sánchez and María Froilana Armira López; witnesses Fredy Peccerelli34 and Marco 31 Cf. Case of Five Pensioners v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 153, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia, supra, para. 47. 32 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, paras. 69 al 76, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, supra, para. 31. 33 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, supra, para. 76, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, supra, para. 31. 34 In his Order of March 20, 2012, the President of the Court admitted the testimony of Fredy Peccerelli, who was offered by representatives after their pleadings and motions brief (supra para. 8), considering that “it is testimony on a fact that occurred after the submission of the pleadings and motions brief, and also that the State indicated that it ha[d] no objection in this regard, and based on Article 57(2), he admit[ted] the said testimony.” Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (Diario Militar) v. Guatemala. Order of the President of March 20, 2012, seventeenth considering paragraph. - 16 -