Uzcátegui and asked “that all the documents that have been presented in said proceedings form part of the supporting evidence in this case.” Also, in their brief of July 15, 2011, they requested that the Court “take into account” the file as a whole in order to “analyze the State’s [alleged] failure to comply with the measures of protection and the victims’ situation of vulnerability in this case.” For its part, the State argued in its response, and subsequently, that the reports it has submitted regarding the provisional measures “should be considered as evidence in favor of the State by the Court.” 33. The Court recalls that the purpose of the provisional measures proceedings, which are of an incidental, precautionary and protective nature, is different from that of a contentious case, both in procedural aspects and in the assessment of the evidence and the scope of the decisions.26 Nevertheless, unlike other cases,27 the beneficiaries of these measures of protection are also the alleged victims in this case. Furthermore, the purpose of the provisional measures coincides with many aspects of the merits of the dispute. Therefore, the briefs and documentation submitted in the provisional measures proceedings will be considered as part of the supporting evidence in the present case, where applicable, and provided that these have been specifically and properly referenced or identified, in a timely manner, by the parties with respect to their arguments.28 V FACTS 34. Based on the evidence before it, this Court determines that the following facts have been duly proven and, therefore, shed light on the factual framework of this case. A. - Context 35. It is not disputed that, at the time when the alleged violations of the Convention took place, extrajudicial killings and other abuses were committed in the State by the 26 Cf. Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, para. 69 and Case of Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, para. 48. 27 Cf. Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 29, 2009. Series C No. 194, para. 58 and Case of Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, para. 48. 28 Cf. Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, para. 48. 10