15 . of the constitutional text of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, as well as the exercise of the jurisdictional function by the maximum court of the Republic; the exercise of the legislative function by the body constitutionally in charge of legislating (National Assembly), and the exercise of the administrative powers of control and supervision by the State of the inexorable compliance of the law; the Venezuelan state can only express its most profound, categorical, and energetic rejection and repudiation, since that type of arguments and questionings are a clear and open interference in the exercise of the sovereign powers the State holds and that have been attributed by the constitution.” * * B.2 * Facts 53. The Court has established that the state’s responsibility can only be demanded at an international level after the State has had the opportunity to examine and declare it through the remedies of the domestic jurisdiction and to repair the damage caused. The international jurisdiction has a subsidiary,36 contributing, and complementary nature.37 54. When a case has been submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court so that the latter can determine if the State is responsible for the violations to human rights enshrined in the American Convention or other applicable instruments, the Tribunal shall analyze the facts in light of the applicable stipulations and determine if the people that have requested the intervention of the instances of the Inter-American System are victims of the alleged violations and, in its case, if the State shall adopt determined reparation measures. This is what the Court’s jurisdictional function refers to. 55. With regard to the facts of the present case, the application constitutes the factual framework of the proceedings38 and the criteria applicable to the admissibility of new and supervening facts were exposed (supra para. 42). 56. Even though the parties can present supervening facts to the Tribunal at any time during the proceedings, prior to the judgment, this does not mean that any situation or event constitutes a supervening fact for the effects of the proceedings. A fact of this nature has to be phonologically related to the facts of the proceedings, thus it is not enough that a specific situation or fact be related to the object of the case for this Tribunal to issue a ruling in this regard. The representatives have not specified what they understand by continued facts nor have they argued why, even in that hypothesis; they would have to be considered supervening. Additionally, the facts and contextual references do not constitute new opportunities for the parties to introduce facts different to those that conform the factual framework of the proceedings. Cf. Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al. V. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C. No. 157, para. 66; and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. V. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 47. 36 Cf. Preamble to the American Convention on Human Rights. See also The Effects of Reservations on the Entry into Force of the American Convention on Human Rights (Arts. 74 and 75). Advisory Opinion OC-2/82 of September 24, 1982. Series A No. 2, para. 31; The Word “Laws” in Article 30 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-6/86 of May 9, 1986. Series A No. 6, para. 26; and Case of Veleasquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 61. 37 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 59; Case of Tiu Tojín V. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C. No. 190, para. 21, and Case of Bayarru V. Argentina. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C No. 187, para. 30. 38