representatives allege facts that differ from those described in the said report, even though they may state those facts that explain, provide details of, clarify or reject the facts mentioned in the report24 and that have been submitted to the Court’s consideration. 35. In its brief submitting the case, the Commission indicated that it “submit[ted] to the jurisdiction of the Court all the facts […] described in merits report 84/10.” The Court has verified that the Commission included the following three sections in the factual determinations made in the Merits Report: “1. Context”; “2. The criminal proceedings undertaken against Raúl José Díaz Peña,” and “3. Detention conditions and Raúl José Díaz Peña’s health situation.” 36. In particular, with regard to the second section on the criminal proceedings, the Commission included specific references to facts that had taken place from September 9, 2003, to May 17, 2010. They included: (a) the investigation and arrest of Raúl José Díaz Peña; (b) the preliminary hearing and other judicial proceedings; (c) the public oral proceedings; (d) the execution of judgment, and (e) the remedy of constitutional amparo. Allegations of irregularities in the preparatory phase of the proceedings and in the proceedings themselves 37. For her part, during the proceedings before the Court, the representative presented factual and legal arguments concerning alleged irregularities during the preparatory phase of the trial. Specifically, she argued the existence of coerced and false statements, the seizure and transfer of evidence without complying with the minimum legal requirements, and the submission of expert evidence that was vitiated and subject to annulment. In addition, she stated that Mr. Díaz Peña was sentenced for crimes whose definition by the Public Prosecution Service was changed and, owing to the absence of due process, “the judgment resulted from an unjust trial.” 38. In response, the State indicated that, after charges had been pressed and during the investigation phase, Mr. Díaz Peña’s defense counsel could have requested that procedures were conducted to prove his innocence before the examining judge, a right that she did not exercise. In addition, it maintained that “there were no irregularities during the trial.” These arguments of the representative and the State were also presented during the proceedings on admissibility and merits before the Commission.25 39. The file of this case reveals, as the Commission indicated in the proceedings before the Court, that in admissibility report No. 23/09 of March 20, 2009, relating to the petition presented on October 12, 2005, the Commission observed that the case referred to alleged violations of the American Convention as a result of: (i) “the presumed prolonged preventive detention to which Raúl José Díaz Peña was subjected”; (ii) “the alleged irregularities in the criminal proceedings against him”; (iii) “the deterioration in his health, presumably because of the detention conditions and the presumed negligence in the provision of adequate and prompt medical care” and, based on this determination, it analyzed the exhaustion of the domestic remedies. 24 Cf. Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 237, para. 33. 25 Cf. Initial petition of October 12, 2005 (evidence file, tome V, folios 3138 to 3152); Admissibility Report No. 23/09, Petition 1133-05 Raúl José Díaz Peña - Venezuela, issued by the Inter-American Commission on March 20, 2009, paras. 9, 12, 22, 24 and 27 (file of the proceedings before the Inter-American Commission, folios 430 to 438); Merits Report No. 84/10, Case 12,703, Raúl José Díaz Peña – Venezuela issued by the Inter-American Commission on July 13, 2010, paras. 37 and 43 (merits file, tome I, folios 79 and 80); Note AGEV/000600 of May 3, 2007, addressed to the Executive Secretary of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights by the Agent of the State of Venezuela (evidence file, tome XXV, folios 17191 to 17209), and Note AGEV/000863 of August 5, 2007, addressed to the Executive Secretary of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights by the Agent of the State of Venezuela (evidence file, tome XXV, folios 17210 to 17218). 12