Chamber in the case of Miguel Mora Calvo.” In this regard, the Court notes that the transcripts submitted by SIPDH do not relate to the annexes submitted by the State on September 25 and November 28, 2017. Therefore, they were not submitted at the appropriate procedural stage. Nor do they constitute supervening evidence and the exceptions established in Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure do not apply. Consequently, the Court will not admit the transcribed documents provided by SIPDH. 145. Finally, with regard to the State’s observations on the statements of the alleged victims, the witnesses, and the expert opinions, 182 the Court notes that these refer to their content and, therefore, may affect the assessment of their evidentiary weight, but do not affect their admissibility. 183 C. Assessment of the Evidence 146. Based on Articles 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 57 and 58 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as its consistent case law concerning evidence and its assessment, the Court will now examine and assess the documentary evidence submitted by the parties and the Commission at the appropriate procedural moment, as well as the statements and expert opinions provided in affidavits. To this end, it will abide by the principle of sound judicial discretion, within the corresponding legal framework, taking into account the entire body of evidence and the arguments made in the case. 184 VI PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS 147. The State alleged that certain facts submitted by the common interveners regarding: i) the criminal cases brought against Jorge Martínez Meléndez (Group 4); ii) the conditions of detention of the alleged victims, and iii) the alleged lack of impartiality of Judge Javier Llobet who tried Miguel Mora Calvo, were outside the factual framework of the case. 185 148. The Court has established that the factual framework of the case before the Court is constituted by the facts contained in the Merits Report submitted for its consideration. Consequently, it is not admissible for the parties to allege new facts other than those contained in the Merits Report, without prejudice to submitting any facts that may explain, clarify or reject those that have been mentioned in said report and have been submitted to the Court’s consideration. The exception to this principle are facts classified as supervening, which may be forwarded to the Court at any stage of the proceedings, provided that they are linked to the facts of the case. 186 Likewise, the alleged victims and their representatives may invoke the violation of rights other than those included in the Merits Report, provided they In its brief of January 25, 2018, the State questioned the opinion of the expert witness Alberto Bovino considering that there was a “conflict of interests” since Mr. Bovino acts as representative in Case 13.190 against Costa Rica, which is before the Commission. According to the State, this is supervening information. In this regard, the Court noted that in accordance with the information submitted by the State, Alberto Bovino acted as its representative since 2009, for which reason the State was fully aware of this fact prior to the proper procedural moments to challenge the admissibility of the evidence. Nevertheless, the Court takes note of the representation of the expert witness in the case in question and will consider this when issuing its decision. 183 Cf. Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela, supra, para.33, and Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2017. Series C No. 340, para. 29. 184 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 76, and Case of Favela Nova Brasilia v. Brazil, supra, para. 98. 185 The Court will not refer to prior matters raised by the State in relation to groups of alleged victims and files that are not being analyzed, by virtue of the decision mentioned in the chapter on preliminary objections. 186 Cf. Case of Five Pensioners v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, Para. 153, and Case Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 30. 182 50