the time that they are exposed. At the same time, “freezing and unfreezing embryos can cause alterations to their morphologic characteristics and the survival rate of blastocysts, which could translate into lower implantation rates.” Lastly, the State indicated that “[IVF] entails a number of dilemmas and legal problems that are equally profound and complex to resolve.” In this regard, it mentioned the following issues: (i) “there is no consensus […] regarding the legal status of frozen embryos, and on the regulation and duration of their conservation and purpose. Specifically, these situations are problematic when the parents […] separate or divorce”; (ii) “the separation of the parents who have frozen their embryos can lead to the problem of forced paternity […] if one of the parents demands the implantation of the embryo in spite of the separation or divorce,” and (iii) “[IVF] poses a far-reaching problem with regard to the regulation of paternity,” in particular the problem of “the paternity rights of the husband of the woman who under[went] a heterogeneous [IVF] – with genetic material from a man other than her husband or partner,” given that “one of the essential factors to determine paternity is the determination of the genetic material.” 214 Considerations of the Court 130. The Inter-American Commission focused the purpose of this case on the effects of the judgment delivered by the Constitutional Chamber. However, the parties have presented arguments concerning the following issues, which exceed the analysis made in the Constitutional Chamber’s judgment, namely: (i) a presumed “context” alleged by representative Molina; (ii) the alleged interference of the media and society in the private life of the presumed victims, and (iii) general arguments about the problems that IVF could represent. In order to determine the purpose of this case, the Court will establish whether these disputes fall within the framework of the case. 131. First, the Court has established that the factual framework of the proceedings before the Court consists of the facts included in the Merits Report submitted to the Court’s consideration. 215 Consequently, it is not admissible for the parties to argue new facts that differ from the contents of this report, without prejudice to describing those that explain, clarify or reject the facts that it mentions and that were submitted to the Court’s consideration. 216 The exceptions to this principle are facts categorized as supervening, provided that they are related to the facts of the proceedings. In addition, the presumed victims and their representatives can invoke the violation of rights other than those included in the merits report, provided they abide by the facts contained in the said document, because the presumed victims are the holders of all the rights recognized in the Convention. 217 In summary, it corresponds to the Court to decide in each case on the 214 The State added that (iv) Another area “where there is no consensus is the area of the maternity rights of the ovule donor or surrogate mother – an assumption that would have to be considered in the event that the sterile woman lacks a uterus”; (v) regarding “posthumous conception,” meaning “when the woman requests the implanting of the frozen embryos of her husband or partner who is deceased […], conception occurs after the death of the bearer of the genetic material” and this “poses an unresolved question […]: the inheritance rights of a child born from this conception, and (vi) “the regulation of the liability regime for clinics and doctors who practice [IVF] is particularly sensitive in cases where genetic material has been confused and embryos that are not her own have been implanted in a woman.” 215 Cf. Case of the Five Pensioners v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 153, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family v. Colombia, para. 47. 216 Cf. Case of the Five Pensioners v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 153, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 4, 2012 Series C No. 250, para. 52. 217 Cf. Case of the Five Pensioners v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 153, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 4, 2012 Series C No. 250, para. 52.