27. Based on the foregoing, the Court assesses positively the attitude of the State when indicating its acknowledgement of international responsibility, owing to its significance in the context of the inter-American system for the protection of human rights, and also that the parties have reached an agreement on reparations. The Court also stresses the acknowledgement made by Argentina during the public hearing of the efforts made by the family of Jorge Omar Gutiérrez. All these actions make a positive contribution to the evolution of these proceedings and to the prompt achievement of justice in this case, the validity of the principles that inspire the Convention 16 and, in part, to meeting the needs for redress of the victims of human rights violations. 17 Consequently, having examined this acknowledgement, and since the parties and the Commission agree on the importance that it rule in this regard, the Court finds it necessary to deliver a judgment in which it determines the facts and all the elements of the merits of the matter, as well as the corresponding consequences in relation to reparations. 18 V PRIOR CONSIDERATIONS A. Determination of the factual framework 28. The Court notes that, in their pleadings and motions brief, the representatives referred to facts that were not included in the Commission’s Merits Report concerning the supposed limitations, based on the criminal law applicable to the case, to the participation of the next of kin of Mr. Gutiérrez in the investigations into his death. 19 29. This Court has established that the factual framework of the proceedings is constituted by the facts contained in the Merits Report submitted to its consideration. 20 Consequently, it is not admissible for the parties to allege new facts that differ from those contained in this report, 21 although they may refer to facts that explain, clarify or reject the ones mentioned in the report and that have been submitted to the Court’s consideration. 22 16 Cf. Case of El Caracazo v. Venezuela. Merits. Judgment of November 11, 1999. Series C No. 58, para. 43, and Case of García and family members, supra, para. 22. 17 Cf. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 18, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245, para. 27. 18 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 69, and Case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 26, 2011. Series C No. 229, para. 37. 19 The representatives stated that: “[t]he procedural law in force at that time (Provincial Law 3589), accorded limited possibilities for the next of kin of Mr. Gutiérrez to intervene in the proceeding […].” According to the representatives, the “very limited” possibilities of the injured party are established specifically in article 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the province of Buenos Aires. In addition, “according to article 89 [of this Code] the injured party is not a ‘party’ to the proceedings, placing him on a secondary level in relation to the prosecutor and the defense.” Cf. Pleadings and motions brief (merits file, folio 125). 20 Cf. Case of the 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, Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 248, para. 47. 21 Cf. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 178, and Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (In vitro fertilization) v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2012. Series C No. 257, para. 133. 22 Cf. Case of the "Children’s Rehabilitation Institute” v. Paraguay. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 124, and Case of Fornerón and daughter v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 27, 2012. Series C No. 242, para. 17. 13