Convention. The Court’s considerations in those cases also apply to the instant case because, once again, the State has failed to prove that the Merits Report was published in a way that differed from that described by the Commission or contrary to the provisions of the American Convention. Consequently, the Court finds that Brazil’s allegation is inadmissible. G. Lack of jurisdiction of the Court to examine facts introduced by the representatives G.1. Arguments of the State, observations of the Commission and of the representatives 89. The State filed a preliminary objection in which it indicated that the representatives of the presumed victims were not permitted to introduce new facts that differed from those presented by the Commission in its Merits Report, even though they could present legal claims distinct from those presented by the Commission. It indicated that, in this case, the concealment of the military files and the denial of access to those documents had not been included in the Commission’s Merits Report and, therefore, the representatives’ request that the Court declare the violation of the right to the truth had no factual basis. 90. The State also argued that the Commission’s Merits Report had made no mention of the supposed violation of the right to the truth or to the public civil action that was being processed at this time. Consequently, the State considered that, in this case, the Court should recognize its lack of competence ratione materiae to examine facts that are not included in the Admissibility Report or in the brief submitting the case to the Court. 91. In this regard, the Commission noted that the State’s allegations did not constitute a preliminary objection; rather they disputed matters of substance. It added that the State’s arguments did not seek to contest the Court’s competence owing to time, matter, or place, and were not of a preliminary nature; to the contrary, they referred to facts alleged by the representatives that supposedly were not part of the factual framework defined in its Merits Report. 92. Based on the above, the Commission recalled that the factual framework of the proceedings before the Court was constituted by the facts contained in the Merits Report submitted by the Commission, Nevertheless, the representatives were able to submit autonomous legal arguments and describe those facts that explained, clarified or rejected facts that had been submitted to the consideration of the Court. Meanwhile, the Court was called on to assess whether the elements introduced explained or clarified the facts described by the Commission in its Merits Report and whether they were related to the factual framework of the case. 93. Lastly, the Commission considered that the elements introduced by the representatives constituted an explanation of the context of institutional cover-up established in the Merits Report. In addition, it could be understood that they were related to the attempts by various domestic instances to obtain information from public entities, including the military, and, thus, they were reasonably related to the factual framework and the analysis made in the Merits Report. 94. The representatives underscored that the contents of the factual framework did not constitute a preliminary objection, but rather related to an analysis that the Court must make to determine the merits of the case, as revealed by the Court’s case law. 95. Nevertheless, regarding the inclusion of facts that were not developed in the Merits Report, they argued that this was possible when they were facts that explained, clarified or 20