relate to facts already contained in the application. 187 Finally, the Court will decide in each case on the admissibility of the arguments related to the factual framework in order to safeguard the procedural balance of the parties. 188 In light of the foregoing, the Court will analyze the three groups of arguments presented by the State below. A. Criminal cases against Jorge Martínez Meléndez (Group 4) A.1. Arguments of the parties and the Commission 149. The State argued that in the pleadings and motions brief, the Factum Consorcio representatives included new facts that are not part of the factual framework contained in the Merits Report, namely: a) the inclusion of a second criminal case contained in file 05-0074950647-TP in which Mr. Martínez Meléndez was sentenced to six years of imprisonment for the crimes of libelous complaint and actual libel; b) the alleged substitution of Judge Adela Sibaja Rodríguez by Judge Miriam Sandí Murcia in the Trial Court of the first Judicial Circuit of San José, in case 03-82-016TP; c) the alleged extensive application and interpretation of the criminal offense of embezzlement used by the State; and d) the alleged refusal to admit and provide access to evidence for the defense. 150. The Commission held that in its answering brief the State did not indicate to which alleged new facts it was referring, and thus “it could not identify a violation of the State’s right of defense and […would not be] in a position to submit detailed observations in this regard.” 151. The Factum Consorcio representatives argued that: a) the criminal case contained in file No. 05-007495-0647-TP, although it is not mentioned in the Merits Report, “is not new”, since this matter was brought to the Commission’s attention in briefs dated October 3, 2011, which were forwarded prior to the issuance of the Admissibility and Merits Reports. b) the substitution of Judge Adela Sibaja Rodríguez by Judge Miriam Sandí Murcia “does not constitute a new fact, but rather an illustration of the manner, the actors, and the illegal mechanisms that the State used to violate the right to liberty, as well as the absence of impartiality in the trial.” c) the argument regarding the extensive application of the criminal offense of embezzlement “is directly related to the main fact of arbitrary deprivation of liberty, and the denial of the right to appeal in the criminal proceeding that followed, given that the sentence imposed was by application of the criminal definition of said offense.” They also alleged that the criminal offense of embezzlement was applied to Mr. Martínez in order to 187 30. Cf. Case of Five Pensioners v. Peru, supra. para. 153, and Case of Acosta et al. v. Nicaragua, supra, para. Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia, supra, para. 58; and Case of Acosta et al. v. Nicaragua, supra, para. 30. 188 51