its Merits Report (supra paras. 1 to 3); therefore, they constitute new facts that are not part of the factual framework of the case. In this regard, the Court has maintained repeatedly that the submission of the case constitutes the factual framework for the proceedings before it; thus, alleging new facts that are different from those contained in the submission brief is inadmissible, without prejudice to submitting those that are supervening or that explain, clarify or reject the facts in the submission brief, or that relate to the claims of the plaintiff.28 Consequently, the Court will not rule on these allegations. 53. Among the claims presented in their pleadings and motions brief, the representatives asked the Court to declare the international responsibility of the State for the violation of Article 18 of the American Convention regarding the “right to a name.” Nevertheless, in that brief, the representatives did not indicate the factual and legal arguments on which this violation was founded or identify the victims of the said violation. Therefore, the Court will not rule on this point. 54. Additionally, in their final written arguments, the representatives invoked for the first time the violation of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention, based on the argument that the domestic judges failed to supervise conformity with the Convention in the judgments handed down with regard to the facts of this case. The Court observes that this argument was not submitted at the appropriate procedural moment; that is, in the pleadings and motions brief. Because it is time-barred, the Court will not rule in this regard. VIII FACTS 55. First, the Court finds it necessary to clarify that, according to its case law, the principle of non-retroactivity and the optional clause accepting this Court’s contentious jurisdiction do not mean that an act that occurred prior to this acceptance must be excluded from any consideration when it could be relevant for determining facts and human rights violations that are within its temporal jurisdiction. In this regard, the Court observes that, in order to decide the different cases submitted to its consideration, it has needed to take into account the context and other facts that exceed its jurisdiction, because the political and historical context is decisive for establishing the legal consequences of the case, including both the nature of the violations of the Convention and the corresponding reparations.29 Consequently, the analysis of the facts and human rights violations over which the Court has competence, as decided in Chapters IV and V, cannot be isolated from consideration of the background and context in which those facts supposedly occurred. Furthermore, it is not possible to determine the respective legal consequences in the vacuum inherent in decontextualization, since it has been argued that, in Guatemala, the facts of this case are not isolated acts. In this Chapter, the Court will refer to the general context as well as to the specific facts of the five massacres submitted to its consideration. This does not mean that the Court must derive specific legal consequences from them.30 Added to this, the 28 Cf. Case of Five Pensioners v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 153, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, supra, para. 27, footnote 28. 29 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, paras. 53 and 63, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 116. 30 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 82, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra, para. 46. 22