23 substantially, a litigation between a State and a petitioner or presumed victim,45 the latter can refer to facts that explain, contextualize, clarify or reject those mentioned in the application or else respond to the claims of the State,46 based on their arguments and the evidence they provide, without impairing the procedural balance or the adversarial principle, because the State is given procedural opportunities to respond to these allegations at all stages of the proceedings. On the other hand, the Court can be informed of supervening facts at any stage of the proceedings before it delivers judgment,47 provided they are related to the facts of the proceedings.48 It is for the Court to determine the need to prove the facts, as they were presented by the parties or taking into account other elements of the body of evidence,49 provided the right to defense of the parties and the purpose of the litigation are respected. 57. In this case, the Court has verified that in its report on admissibility, the Commission expressly stated that the petitioners alleged that all the violations they had suffered were due to their work in the defense of the environment.50 However, in its merits report, the Commission considered that those allegations “were neither legally nor factually connected to its admissibility report.”51 Later, in its application – which establishes the factual framework of the case – the Commission only sets out as facts of the case that Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel were members of the OEPSP and that they received four awards related to the defense of the 45 In the case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, the Court highlighted that the recent reform of the Court’s Rules of Procedure (and even of those of the Commission) reflects this conception. The Court recalled that in the introduction to the reforms indicates that: “[T]he principal reform introduced by the new Rules of Procedure relates to the role of the Commission in the proceedings before the Court. In this regard, the different actors of the system that took part in this consultation referred to the advisability of modifying some aspects of the Commission’s participation in the proceedings before the Court, granting greater prominence in the litigation to the representatives of the victims or presumed victims and the defendant State; thereby enhancing the role of the Commission as an organ of the inter-American system, and thus improving the procedural balance between the parties. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 27, para. 49. 46 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners" v. Peru, supra note 43, para. 153; Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 27, para. 49; and Case of Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010. Series C N. 214, para. 237. 47 In a similar sense, Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners" v. Peru, supra note 43, para. 154; 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. 48 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners" v. Peru, supra note 43, para. 155; Case of González et al (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C N° 205, para. 17 and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 27, para. 49. 49 Cf. Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haiti. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 180, para. 19; Case of Rosendo Cantu et al v. Mexico; supra note 30 and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, supra note 30, para. 47. 50 When they submitted their petition before the Commission, the representatives based their case on “the actions and diverse mobilizations that” the OEPSP had “carried out” and they alleged “a strong wave of repression for the members of [this organization] by means of arbitrary detentions, torture, murders, and forced disappearances.” They also indicated that “as a consequence of their fight for the environment, the peasants that are part of the OEPSP […] began to receive various death threats such as those received by Mr. Montiel in […] 1998.” Cf. petition for the admissibility report filed on June 3, 2003 (record of annexes to the application, annex 3, volume III, folio 958) and request for the opening of the case against the United Mexican States filed on October 25, 2001 (record of annexes to the application, annex III, volume III, folio 1186). In their observations on the merits of the case, the petitioners provided a more in-depth study in their arguments and evidence related to this hypothesis and indicated that the violations alleged in the present case form part of “a broader framework of reprisals for their independent action as members of the OEPSP. Cf. observations on the merits of February 3, 2006, para. 171 (records of annexes to the application, annex 3, volume III, folio 872). 51 Cf. Merits Report N° 88/08, para. 203, supra note 3, folio 271.