49. The Tribunal observes that throughout the Report on the merits and the application, the Inter-American Commission refers generally to Iván Eladio Torres Millacura's “family members” as victims in this case, and that the specification of who these persons are is minimal and even variable at times. In particular, while referring to the alleged violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, both in its Report on the merits and in the application, the Commission indicated that the State “ha[d] not complied with its obligation to provide the victim and his family members with an effective judicial remedy geared toward bringing the facts to light [...].” The Commission did not specify the identities of these “family members.” Likewise, with regard to the allegations regarding the violation of Article 5 of the American Convention “with respect to the relatives of Iván Eladio Torres,” in its Report on the merits, the Commission indicated that it found that the State had violated that provision to the detriment of Torres Millacura’s “closest relatives,” that is, “his mother[, María Leontina Millacura Llaipén,] his sister[, Fabiola Valeria Torres], and his brother[, Marcos Alejandro Torres Millacura].” However, in the application presented before the Court, the Commission made the same allegation, but to the detriment of “Iván Eladio Torres [Millacura]’s closest relatives,” without specifying who those relatives were. Additionally, the Tribunal notes that in its ��conclusions” in the Report on the merits, the Commission indicated that the State had violated Articles 5, 8, and 25 of the Convention “to the detriment of the relatives of the victim: specifically, his mother, brother, sister and[, in addition, his] niece.” However, in its conclusions in the application, the Commission indicated that the State had violated the same provisions “to the detriment of the relatives of the victim,” without specifying who those individuals were. Finally, in the application, the InterAmerican Commission explicitly requested the measures of reparation “corresponding” “in the case of Iván Eladio Torres and his relatives, to wit, his mother, María[Leontina] Millacura Llaipén, his sister, Fabiola Valeria Torres, and his brother, Marcos [Alejandro] Torres [Millacura].” At this point, the Commission did not indicate any other family members; the Tribunal notes, in particular, that it did not mention Mr. Torres Millacura's niece. 50. In light of the foregoing, in this Judgment the Tribunal considers, in addition to Mr. Iván Eladio Torres Millacura, Mrs. María Leontina Millacura Llaipén, Mrs. Fabiola Valeria Torres, and Mr. Marcos Alejandro Torres Millacura as alleged victims, due to the fact that they are the only family members specified by the Inter-American Commission with regard to whom reparations were requested for the violations alleged in the application. Therefore, Ivan Eladio Torres Millacura's niece mentioned by the Commission, Evelyn Paola Caba, will not be considered as an alleged victim. Nor will his nieces Ivana Valeria Torres and Romina Marcela Torres, mentioned by the representatives, be considered alleged victims (supra para 5). B. Factual framework of the case. B.1. Other facts alleged by the representatives. 51. The Court notes that in the brief of pleadings and motions, the representatives referred to multiple facts29 that did not form part of the factual framework presented by 29 Stated generally, these facts are: the alleged detention and “beating” suffered by Iván Eladio Torres Millacura on 30 August 1998; the alleged police brutality suffered by María Leontina Millacura Llaipén; Mr. Torres’s alleged detention on September 17, 2003, of Mr. Torres Millacura; the alleged forced entry into Mrs. Millacura Llaipen’s home and the threats made against her on 1 October 2003; the alleged discrimination due to nationality; Mrs. Millacura Llaipen’s visits to the First Precinct of the city of Comodoro Rivadavia, Province of Chubut; alleged threats against Mrs. Millacura Llaipén’s attorneys and allegations that they were being followed; alleged phone tapping against Mrs. Millacura Llaipén; the “petitions” before “political authorities and before organized civil society; the “claims made before the universal human rights system”; the “claims before the Republic of Chile”; the “Report on Citizen Security and Human Rights” of the Inter-American Commission; as well as the events alleged with respect to Walter Marcos Mansilla, Diego Armando Álvarez, Dante Andrés Caamaño, Luis Gajardo, Miguel Ángel Sánchez, and David Hayes. 17