33. The State argued that the pleadings and motions brief included factual elements (infra paras. 36 and 37) that extend beyond those denounced by the petitioners before the Commission, adding facts that were not included in the initial petition. The State concluded that such facts contained in the pleadings and motions brief cannot be classified as supplementary, since they do not explain, clarify or dismiss any of the facts included in the factual framework established by the Commission. Finally, the State requested that all the challenged facts be excluded from the factual framework of this case because they are not referenced in the Commission’s Merits Report. 34. The Commission and the representatives did not refer specifically to the State’s arguments. 35. The Court recalls that, according to its constant case law, the factual framework of the proceedings before the Court is constituted by the facts contained in the Merits Report, with the exception of those classified as supervening, provided that they are linked to the facts of the case. This does not prevent the representatives from presenting facts that may explain, clarify or dismiss those mentioned in the Merits Report and submitted to the Court for consideration.18 Furthermore, this Court has indicated that the alleged victims and their representatives may invoke the violation of rights other than those included in the Merits Report, as long as they remain within the factual framework established by the Commission.19 Thus, it is up to this Court to decide in each case the merits of the arguments related to the factual framework in order to safeguard the procedural balance of the parties.20 36. First, the State argued that the civil lawsuit for damages filed by Senator SP against the alleged victim was expressly excluded by the Commission in its Merits Report.21 The Court notes that in the Merits Report, the Commission mentioned this civil suit and indicated that it did not have updated information on it. Therefore, the Court considers that the Commission did not expressly exclude the aforementioned lawsuit and the civil proceedings to which it gave rise, and for this reason they are part of the factual framework of this case. 37. Secondly, the State argued that the following points made by the representatives would be outside the factual framework of the case: a) the regime of civil sanctions that protect the right to honor and reputation; b) the judicial proceedings brought against third parties following the petition filed before the Commission22 in which political criticism was 18 Cf. Case of “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C 98, para. 153, and Case Herzog et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 15, 2018. Series C No. 353, para. 98. 19 Cf. Case of the Pacheco Tineo Family v. Bolivia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2013, para. 22, and Case of Sales Pimenta v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2022. Series C No. 454, para. 35. 20 Case of Acosta et al. v. Nicaragua. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 25, 2017, para. 30, and Case of Sales Pimenta v. Brazil, supra, para. 35. 21 The representatives explained that, parallel to the second complaint for insults, Senator SP filed a civil suit for the harm that Carlos Baraona had allegedly caused him with his comments. For its part, the Commission pointed out there had been no final ruling in this case and that it had no information about the current procedural status of this claim. 22 Convictions: Raúl Quintana with Javier Rebolledo, Eighth Court of Guarantee of Santiago, RUC N° 1810018991-3, RIT N° 3187-2018 (2018); Citizen with Miodrag Marinovic,” Third Court of Guarantee of Santiago. RUC N° 1310027365-3, RIT N° 6389-2013 (2013); Gaspar Rivas with Andrónico Luksic, Eighth Court of Guarantee of Santiago. RUC N° 1610015512-9, RIT N° 3799-2016 (2016); Gonzalo Cornejo with Daniel Jadue, Fourth Criminal Court. RUC N° 1710019007-9, RIT N° 599-2017 (2017); Fidel Meléndez with Claudio Pucher, Civil Court of Licantén. RUC N°1610017451-4, RIT N° 272-2016 (2016). Acquittals: Andrés and Adolfo Zaldivar with Marcel Claude,” Court of Appeals of Santiago. Case 62.720-2002 (2002); Pedro Sabat with Danae Mlynarz, Eighth Court of Guarantee of Santiago. RUC N° 0810010361-4, RIT N° 4093-2008 (2008); Rodolfo Carter with Marcela Abedrapo Fourteenth Court of Guarantee of Santiago. RUC N° 1710025106-k, RIT N° 4581-2017 (2017); Raúl Quintana with Javier Rebolledo Eighth Court of Guarantee of Santiago. RUC N° 1810018991-3, RIT N° 3187-2018 (2018). Dismissed: Ramón 11