22 and the lack of information concerning their whereabouts […], caused to their family members feelings of deep desperation and anguish that continue affecting them to this day.” 53. In its merits report, upon evaluating the various allegations of the representatives on whether the events that occurred to Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel constituted a reprisal for his activities in defense of the forests and whether they could be seen as part of a pattern of similar reprisals and attacks against defenders of the environment, the Commission “observe[d] that the alleged violations of the rights enshrined in Articles 13 [freedom of expression], 15 [right of assembly], and 16 [freedom of association] were not alleged by the petitioners during the admissibility phase.” Therefore, in its application, the Commission only mentioned that in 1998, Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel established the OEPSP along with other peasants “in order to stop the forest felling operations that, in their opinion, were threatening the environment and the livelihood of the local peasant communities in the mountains of Guerrero.” 54. The State alleged that the Commission “never refer[red] to acts of harassment against the members of [the OEPSP]” and that “[t]his issue was never mentioned in the report of the [Commission]” and “was neither brought up by the petitioners during the admissibility phase.” Additionally, the State indicated that as the representatives were “aware that the alleged threats against members of the OEPSP were not part of the litigation in the case sub judice,” they “put forth arguments with no foundation whatsoever in bad faith in order to link the criminal proceedings underway” to the alleged “acts of violence and harassment against the OEPSP,” despite that “none of the case files indicate” that those acts “had occurred due to their participation as members of [that organization]” and that, in addition, “there are no claims related to threats against the alleged victims before any domestic court.” Furthermore, it stated that “it is not possible to argue that the alleged acts of harassment are supervening events.” 55. The representatives stated that “[c]ontrary to that alleged by the State, the Commission's application indicates that the direct victims of the present case were members of the OEPSP” and “also states that the victims have been given awards due to their work in defense of the environment […].” Additionally, the representatives “did not request the Court to decide the case based on the context in which the facts occurred” but as the Court has done in other cases “to take into account the context to assess the facts.” To this sense, they sustained that “the State errs in indicating that [the representatives seek to] include acts of violence and harassment against the members of the OEPSP in the litigation of this case,” as their intention when referring to the context of the case is not to introduce “facts different from those set out by the Commission in its application, but only to develop, explain, and clarify [the latter].” Furthermore, the representatives alleged that “the way in which the arrest was carried out (including the treatment received during the arrest) and the criminal proceeding against the victims,” as well as the aforementioned events and “the circumstances in which they occurred, arise from the Commission's application.” 56. According to the case law of the Court, the alleged victims, their next of kin, or representatives in the contentious proceedings before this Tribunal, may invoke the violation of rights different to those included in the Commission’s application, as long as they refer to facts already included in the application,43 which constitutes the factual framework of the proceeding.44 In addition, since a contentious case is, 43 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Perú. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 155; Case of Fernandez Ortega et al v. Mexico, supra note 39, para. 218; and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, supra note 30, para. 228. 44 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of March 7, 2005. Series C No. 122, para. 59; Case of Fernandez Ortega et al v. Mexico, supra note 39, para. 69; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, supra note 30, para. 134.