clarify or explain those facts.28 Furthermore, the Court underscores the undertaking made by the State to expedite the necessary reparations through dialogue with the Sarayaku People. All these actions on the part of Ecuador make a positive contribution to these proceedings, to the exercise of the principles underlying the Convention29 and, in part, to satisfying the need to make reparation to the victims of human rights violations.30 28. Finally, although there is no longer a dispute, the Court will proceed to make a specific determination of the events that occurred, because this contributes to making reparation to the victims, to preventing a recurrence of similar acts and, in general, to the satisfaction of the purposes of the inter-American jurisdiction over human rights.31 In addition, the Court will include the relevant chapters to analyze and specify, where relevant, the scope of the alleged violations and, since the determination of the reparations remains pending, will make the necessary ruling. V PRELIMINARY OBJECTION (Failure to exhaust domestic remedies) 29. The State argued that the Sarayaku People filed an application for constitutional amparo on November 27, 2002 against CGC and its subcontractor “Daymi Services S.A.,” and that it had not been concluded owing to the lack of action by the appellants themselves; namely, the Sarayaku People, who had not provided the necessary facilities or cooperation for the prompt and efficient processing of the appeal. The State added that the parties were summoned to a public hearing on December 7, 2002, and the CGC, the main respondent in the proceedings, appeared before the court, but no representative of the Sarayaku appeared. Therefore, according to the Law of Constitutional Control in force at the time, the appeal was deemed to have been withdrawn. The State also indicated that the presumed victims had sufficient remedies at their disposal to resolve this situation, such as filing a complaint before the Human Rights Committee of the National Council of the Judicature or a “hearing to challenge the judge who heard the case”. In this regard, the Commission indicated, inter alia, that while the case was being processed before it, the State had indeed filed the said objection, but that, contrary to what it was claiming before the Court, on that occasion the State indicated that the application for amparo was not the adequate and effective remedy to resolve the situation, because the amparo was not designed to contest an oil concession Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 134 and Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2011. Series C No. 233, para. 98). Thus, even if information has been provided, these facts would be outside of the purpose of the present case. Accordingly, the Court will not take into consideration allegations regarding the guilt or innocence of members of the Sarayaku People with regard to the irregular actions of which they have been accused, since it is not in keeping with the purpose of this case. 28 In their pleadings and motions brief, the representatives referred to a series of events not included in the application submitted by the Commission. In its case law the Court has reiterated that presumed victims and their representatives may invoke the violation of rights other than those included in the petition, provided these are limited to the facts described therein, which constitute the factual framework of the proceedings before the Court. This does not preclude the possibility of setting forth any facts that may explain, clarify or reject those mentioned in the application (Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, paras. 153 and 154 and Case of Forneron and daughter v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 27, 2012 Series C No. 242, para. 17), or the supervening facts which may be submitted to the Court at any stage of the proceedings before the Judgment is delivered. Ultimately, it is for the Court to decide on the admissibility of such arguments in each case, in order to protect the procedural equality of the parties (cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 58, and Case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 26, 2011. Series C No. 229, para. 52). Therefore, the Court will not consider the facts alleged by the representatives that do not fall within the factual framework or that do not explain or clarify this; nor will it refer to legal arguments made by the representatives regarding facts that are outside that factual framework. 29 Cf. Case of El Caracazo v. Venezuela. Merits. Judgment of November 11, 1999. Series C No. 58, para. 43, and Case of Pacheco Teruel et al. v. Honduras. Merits and reparations. Judgment of April 27, 2012. Series C No. 241, para. 19. 30 Cf.. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, para 18, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, para. 26 31 Cf. Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C No. 190, para. 26 and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, para. 153. 11